A B S T R A C T
This paper investigates dynamics in approaches to learning within different learning environments. Two quasi-experimental studies were conducted with first-year student teachers (NStudy 1 = 496, Nstudy 2 = 1098) studying a child development course. Data collection was carried out using a pre-test/post-test design by means of the Approaches to Learning and Studying Inventory. Study 1 compared a lecturebased learning environment with a student-centred learning environment. Results were opposite to the premise that student-centred instruction deepened student learning. Instead, the latter pushed students towards a surface approach. Study 2 investigated whether mixed learning environments consisting of lectures and case-based learning could enhance students’ approaches to learning, compared to learning environments in which either lectures or case-based learning were used. Results showed that the deep and strategic approach decreased in the lecture-based, the case-based and the alternated learning environment, in which lectures and case-based learning were used by turns, while they remained the same in the gradually implemented case-based learning environment. With respect to the surface approach, the strongest decrease was found in the latter learning environment. In conclusion, this paper shows the added value ofgradually implementing case-based learning. Nevertheless, it remains difficult to enhance the deep approach, monitoring studying, organised studying and effort management
Introduction
Student-centred teaching methods
Over the past few decades, there has been an increasing interest in developing teaching methods to involve students in the learning process due to the influence of the constructivist learning theory (Hannafin, Hill, & Land, 1997). This theory defines learning as an ‘‘active process in which learners are active sense makers who seek to build coherent and organised knowledge’’ (Mayer, 2004, p. 14). As such, it views learning as an active process of knowledge construction rather than as a passive reception of information (Mayer, 2004; Tynja¨la¨, 1999).
ayer, 2004; Tynja¨la¨, 1999). Although the constructivist learning theory provides a view on learning and not on teaching, researchers began to think about appropriate teaching methods to foster students’ active knowledge construction. While some researchers indicate that active knowledge construction could take place irrespective of the teaching method, even while attending a lecture (Renkl, 2008; Schelfhout, Dochy, Janssens, Struyven, & Gielen, 2006), others argued that particular constructivist teaching methods should be developed in order to achieve active knowledge construction (Loyens & Rikers, 2011; Tynja¨la¨, 1999). These ‘constructivist’ teaching methods were described frequently as ‘student-centred’ teaching methods since they emphasised the student’s active role in the learning process (Elen, Clarebout, Le´onard, & Lowyck, 2007; Loyens & Rikers, 2011 ).
Since many different teaching methods fall under the umbrella term of constructivist or student-centred teaching practices, for instance problem-based learning and case-based learning, it seems important to clearly indicate the characteristics of the teaching method (Loyens & Rikers, 2011 ). In the present paper, the studentcentred teaching methods are characterised by three features, i.e. (1) an active involvement of the students in order to construct knowledge for themselves (Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006; Struyven, Dochy, & Janssens, 2008) by selecting, interpreting and applying information in order to solve assignments (Struyven et al., 2008), (2) a coaching (Motschnig-Pitrik & Holzinger, 2002) and facilitating (Beijaard, Verloop, & Vermunt, 2000) teacher, who is present to help students out with questions or problems and safeguards their learning process (Struyven, Dochy, & Janssens, 2010), and (3) the use of authentic assignments, for instance practical cases and complex vocational problems (Elen et al., 2007; Kirschner et al., 2006; Loyens, Rikers, & Schmidt, 2007; Struyven et al., 2008).
In general, student-centred teaching methods are believed to enhance the type of student learning which is deep and aims at understanding (Hannafin et al., 1997; Lea, Stephenson, & Troy, 2003; Mayer, 2004). According to the constructivist movement, lectures often fail to ensure that (Struyven et al., 2010). This assumption brings us to the research question central to the present paper, namely ‘‘what are the effects of student-centred teaching methods and lectures on students’ approaches to learning?’’.
Approaches to learning
In studying the effects of teaching on students’ learning, approaches to learning have often been used as a measure of learning, because an approach is both student and contextdependent. A student can adopt one approach in a certain context and another approach in another context, depending on characteristics of that context and student’s interpretation thereof (Biggs, 2001 ). For several decades now, the concept of approaches to learning has been a firmly established concept in educational research literature. It originates in the phenomonographic research approach of Marton (1976) and Sa¨ljo¨ (1975), but later on researchers started quantifying approaches by means of selfreport questionnaires (Biggs, 1987; Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983).
Marton and Sa¨ljo¨ (1997) originally distinguished between a deep and a surface approach. A deep approach is associated with an intention to understand and an intrinsic interest in the content to be learned. To reach this goal, students use deep learning processes, e.g. relating ideas, using evidence and seeking for meaning. Oppositely, the intention behind a surface approach is an extrinsic motivation and fear of failure. As a consequence, surface learning processes are limited to rote memorisation and a narrow syllabus-bound attitude (Biggs, Kember, & Leung, 2001; Entwistle & McCune, 2004). Later, a third approach was defined, i.e. the strategic approach (Entwistle & McCune, 2004). Whereas the deep and surface approach describes ways in which students handle a learning task, the strategic approach indicates how students organise their learning (e.g. when, where, how long they learn) (Biggs et al., 2001 ). The intention of a strategic student is to achieve the highest possible grades. This student is aware of study requirements and tries to accomplish them by making effective use of space and time (Biggs et al., 2001; Entwistle & McCune, 2004). Of these three approaches, the deep approach is mostly valued. However, stimulating students towards this deep approach seems to be difficult (Marton & Sa¨ljo¨ , 1997).
In order to investigate how students can be encouraged to adopt a deep approach, many studies have been conducted about the factors influencing students’ approaches to learning (e.g. Entwistle & Tait, 1990; Scouller, 1998; Trigwell, Prosser, & Waterhouse, 1999). A considerable number of these studies focused on the effects of the context (e.g. Baeten, Kyndt, Struyven, & Dochy, 2010). The present paper suits this research tradition and investigates whether contrasting learning environments that differ in teaching methods have the power to influence students’ approaches to learning towards a deep approach. Therefore, two studies in professional higher education were set up. The first study compared a student-centred and a lecture-based learning environment. The second study also compared a student-centred and a lecture-based learning environment, but additionally, they took into account mixed learning environments combining both student-centred teaching methods and lectures.
Both studies had a quasi-experimental pre-test/post-test nonequivalent group design (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007). They took place in intact student groups within an authentic educational context. The object of study was a course on child development in the first year of the professional bachelor programme in teacher education. Previous results of these studies have been reported in Struyven, Dochy, Janssens, and Gielen (2006) and Baeten, Dochy, and Struyven (2012).
Study 1
Participants
The study took place in the Flemish-speaking part of Belgium. All teacher training institutes offering the professional bachelor programme in primary teacher education were informed about this research project. Nineteen teachers agreed to participate with their student groups (NStudents = 496; response rate = 55.73%). Students were mainly female (84.9%).
Design
Each teacher and his/her student group were assigned to one learning environment, i.e. either a lecture-based or a studentcentred learning environment.
(1) The lecture-based learning environment was characterised by direct teaching through formal lectures (N = 98). Direct instruction on the contents in the course book (introduction, prenatal period/neonate/baby, toddler/kindergartner, school child, adolescent, synthesis) was given by the teacher, who literally stood in front of the class. Pre-structured PowerPoint presentations were used to guarantee a fairly standardised delivery of the contents. In this learning environment, students were assessed by means of a multiple choice examination, which was their final examination for the course on child development.
(2) The student-centred learning environment (N = 398) consisted of several student-centred teaching methods, such as problembased learning tasks and case studies, all characterised by the three features as stated in the introduction: (1) ‘actively’ selecting, interpreting and applying the information in the course book (and other resources), (2) a coaching and facilitating teacher, and (3) the use of authentic assignments. Several assignments had to be solved in cooperation with fellow students (e.g. case study), whereas others had to be done individually (e.g. reflection task). Some assignments consisted of both collaborative and individual work (e.g. learning contract). Detailed instructions that were associated with the assignments directed both students and teachers.
While the teaching methods in the student-centred learning environment were the same for all student groups, the assessment method for their final examination differed from group to group. These were: (1) a portfolio (N = 151), in which students had to collect the assignments tackled during classes, elaborated with their reflections on their experiences and learning; (2) an openbook, case-based assessment (N = 87). Students received the case after the final lesson, so they could use them to prepare for their examination. The examination questions remained confidential and required students to apply theory to the case; (3) peer/coassessment (N = 67). Three assignments were subject of the peer assessment, in which students scored their peers and themselves on the learning and collaborative processes within the group. Depending on the peer assessment scores, the teacher’s score on the assignments increased or decreased; or (4) a multiple choice While the teaching methods in the student-centred learning environment were the same for all student groups, the assessment method for their final examination differed from group to group. These were: (1) a portfolio (N = 151), in which students had to collect the assignments tackled during classes, elaborated with their reflections on their experiences and learning; (2) an openbook, case-based assessment (N = 87). Students received the case after the final lesson, so they could use them to prepare for their examination. The examination questions remained confidential and required students to apply theory to the case; (3) peer/coassessment (N = 67). Three assignments were subject of the peer assessment, in which students scored their peers and themselves on the learning and collaborative processes within the group. Depending on the peer assessment scores, the teacher’s score on the assignments increased or decreased; or (4) a multiple choice examination (N = 93), which included 20 questions with four multiple choice answers. Only one of the answers provided the correct answer to the question. Wrong answers were penalised by subtracting 1/3 point.
Table 1 gives an overview of the teaching methods in each learning environment. To guarantee a standardised implementation of the instructional treatment, several measures were taken. First, standardised learning materials were developed, i.e. the same course book, PowerPoint presentations, assignments, and correction keys. Secondly, all teachers participated voluntarily in the research project. They knew the importance of applying the teaching methods as prescribed by the researchers. They were asked which of the learning environments they felt most and less comfortable with, so that they could be assigned to a learning environment with which they felt comfortable. Thirdly, all the standardised learning materials were submitted to the participating teachers for preview. Their feedback was used in revising the materials. Fourthly, before the start of the research, a meeting was organised with each teacher to ensure similar experimental protocols. Finally, randomly selected observations in the classes of participating teachers took place with the aim of stimulating them to use the prescribed teaching methods as intended. The teachers knew that observations would take place. In this way, they were encouraged to apply the teaching methods as intended.
Instruments
Approaches to learning were measured by means of the Approaches to Learning and Studying Inventory (ALSI; Entwistle, McCune, & Hounsell, 2002). The ALSI was originally developed for a project designed to investigate how specific changes in the teaching–learning environment affected students’ approaches to learning (Entwistle & McCune, 2004) and therefore fits the objectives of the current study. The ALSI contains 36 items scored on a five-point Likert scale. Five scales can be distinguished: deep approach (e.g. ‘‘I usually set out to understand for myself the meaning ofwhat we have to learn.’’), surface approach (e.g. ‘‘Often I have to learn over and over things that don’t really make much sense to me.’’), monitoring studying (e.g. ‘‘When I’ve finished a piece of work, I check to see it really meets the requirements.’’), organised studying (e.g. ‘‘I’m quite good at preparing for classes in advance.’’) and effort management (e.g. ‘‘I generally keep working hard even when things aren’t going all that well.’’). The scale monitoring studying relates to the deep approach and describes metacognitive aspects of learning and studying. The scales organised studying (including time management) and effort management (including concentration) refer to the strategic approach. The questionnaire was administered twice. At the beginning of the first lesson, students’ initial/general approaches to learning were measured by means ofstatements about their studying. At the end of the final lesson, students’ approaches to learning for the course in question, i.e. child development, were measured by means of statements regarding their studying for the course on child development. During each measurement, the teacher distributed the questionnaires (in hard-copy format). The completed questionnaires were collected in a box and picked up by the researchers
Confirmatory factor analysis on both pre- and post-test data using LISREL 8.8 confirmed the five scales as separate constructs. The standardised root mean square residual (SRMR), the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and the comparative fit index (CFI) were respectively .07, .05, and .95 for the pre-test data and .06, .05 and .95 for the post-test data, which indicated an adequate fit of the five-factor model (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Cronbachs alpha for pre- and post-test data was good, respectively .76/.75 for deep approach, .79/.78 for surface approach, .69/.67 for monitoring studying, .76/.80 for organised studying and .72/.73 for effort management.
Results
In order to investigate the effects of the learning environment on students’ approaches to learning, mixed design ANOVA was performed, which combines between-group (‘learning environment’) and repeated measures (‘approaches to learning’) variables (Field, 2009). Results of the mixed design ANOVA were reported in Table 2. All the variables, except the deep approach, changed significantly between pre- and post-test. Descriptive statistics in Table 3 indicated that students’ scores on the surface approach generally increased, while their scores on monitoring studying, organised studying and effort management generally decreased. With respect to the surface approach and organised studying, borderline interaction effects were found with the learning environment (Table 2), which indicated that the change in the surface approach and organised studying differed depending on the learning environment. Results in Table 3 showed that the surface approach increased in both learning environments, but the increase in the student-centred learning environment was stronger than the increase in the lecture-based learning environment. Organised studying, on the other hand, decreased in both learning environments, with the strongest decrease in the lecturebased learning environment. Regarding the influence of the assessment mode, a borderline significant interaction effect was found with the surface approach (F(4, 491) = 2.25, p = .06, partial h2 = .02). Students being assessed by means of peer/co-, portfolio and case-based assessment showed a stronger increase in the surface approach, compared to students being assessed by means of multiple choice examinations (Fig. 1 ).
While the purpose of the study was to investigate whether the adoption of the deep approach could be encouraged by applying student-centred teaching methods, no significant effects were found on the deep approach. This might be explained by a lack of structure and guidance in the student-centred learning environment (Kirschner et al., 2006; Mayer, 2004). Therefore, it was suggested that lectures be included in student-centred learning environments in order to provide structured support and ensure transparency in the coherence of the course contents (Struyven et al., 2006)
This suggestion was addressed in Study 2. Besides a lecturebased and a student-centred learning environment, Study 2 included two mixed learning environments consisting of both lectures and student-centred teaching methods. Study 2 focused on one student-centred teaching method in particular, i.e. casebased learning, in order to investigate the effects of that particular method. While Study 1 manipulated the assessment modes, these were held constant in Study 2 in order to avoid disturbing preassessment effects (Gielen, Dochy, & Dierick, 2003). Moreover, a larger sample ofstudent groups was aimed at in Study 2 in order to be able to conduct multilevel analyses. Therefore, not only students in the primary teacher education programme, but also students in the pre-primary and lower-secondary teacher education programme were included.
Study 2
Participants
Similar to Study 1, Study 2 took place in the Flemish-speaking part of Belgium. All teacher training institutes offering the professional bachelor programme in pre-primary, primary and lower-secondary teacher education were informed about this research project. Twenty-six teachers agreed to participate with their student groups (NStudents = 1098; response rate = 73.74%). 27.6% of the students studied the pre-primary teacher education programme, 48.3% of the students studied the primary teacher education programme and 24.1% ofthe students studied the lowersecondary teacher education programme. Students were mainly female (77.4%)
Design
The course book used in Study 1 was revised and slightly modified for Study 2, based on teachers’ feedback and new developments in child development. The contents were the same in the three teacher education programmes. Each teacher and his/ her student group were assigned to one of the four learning environments. Table 4 gives an overview of the teaching methods and contents in each learning environment.
1. The lecture-based learning environment (LLLL; NStudents = 251, NTeachers = 5) resembled the lecture-based learning environment in Study 1. However, the PowerPoint presentations were modified based on the revised course book. Moreover, visual aids (i.e. pictures and videos) were incorporated about each developmental phase. Together with the PowerPoint presentations, notes were provided to the teachers with exemplary questions they could ask students so that teacher–student interaction could occur.
2. The case-based learning environment (CCCC; NStudents = 307, NTeachers = 9) was characterised by the three features stated in the introduction: (1) ‘actively’ selecting, interpreting and applying the information in the course book (and other resources), (2) a coaching and facilitating teacher, and (3) the use of authentic assignments. All cases were in a written format, focused on a specific developmental phase and contained 2–16 pages. Students had to read the cases at home a n d in class questions about the cases were solved in small student groups (four to six students) with the help of the course book. Those questions consisted oftrue/false and openended questions in which the link had to be made between the case and the course content. The solution to these case studies was not graded, since rewards tend to have a considerably negative effect on students’ intrinsic motivation (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999). Instead, the answers to the cases were corrected by students themselves with the help of correction keys
3. In the alternated learning environment, lectures and casebased learning were used by turns (LCLC; NStudents = 281, NTeachers = 7). Both occurred approximately in equal amounts. Students first received a lecture about each developmental phase and afterwards a case study, so that the goals of lectures and case-based learning could constantly support each other.
4. In the gradually implemented case-based learning environment (LLCC; NStudents = 259, NTeachers = 5), the first chapters in the course book were provided by means of lectures, the next chapters were provided by means of a combination of lectures and case-based learning, and the final chapters were provided exclusively by means of case-based learning.
To guarantee a standardised implementation of the instructional treatment, the same measures were taken as in Study 1 (see p. 10).
Students in the four learning environments were assessed by means of the same written, open-book, case-based examination, which was their final examination for the course on child development. In this way, disturbing pre-assessment effects in case of applying different assessment formats (Gielen et al., 2003) were avoided. The test consisted of a large, realistic case that students received about two weeks before the examination. During the examination, questions were asked about the case in relation to the theories and concepts of child development. Since students in the lecture-based learning environment had only experience with realistic examples provided by the teacher during lectures, they received an exemplary written case and accompanying questions in order to have an example of how the examination could look like.
Instruments
Similar to Study 1, approaches to learning were measured by means of the ALSI. Confirmatory factor analysis on both pre- and post-test data using LISREL 8.8 confirmed the five scales as separate constructs. The standardised root mean square residual (SRMR), the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and the comparative fit index (CFI) were respectively .06, .05, and .93 for the pre-test data and .06, .05 and .94 for the post-test data, which indicated an adequate fit of the five-factor model (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Cronbachs alpha for pre- and post-test data was good, respectively .75/.76 for deep approach, .72/.75 for surface approach, .65/.65 for monitoring studying, .79/.74 for organised studying and .76/.76 for effort management.
Results
The number of participating teachers (N = 26) was adequate to conduct multilevel analysis. In this way, the hierarchical data structure, i.e. students nested within teachers, could be incorporated. The multilevel model consisted of two levels: (1) student and (2) teacher. The variable ‘moment of measurement’ was included as covariate and the variables ‘learning environment’ and ‘teaching programme’ were included as factor in order to explain students’ approaches to learning (dynamics from pre- to post-test). Effects were estimated through the maximum likelihood method
Table 5 reports the fixed main effects of ‘moment of measurement’ and the fixed interaction effects of ‘moment of measurement’ and ‘learning environment’. The fixed main effects showed that the five approaches to learning variables changed significantly between pre- and post-test. However, the pattern of changes of all approaches to learning differed along the learning environment, as was made clear by the fixed interaction effects. Descriptive statistics (Table 6) and graphs (Figs. 2–6) made clear the different patterns. Concerning the deep approach and the strategic approach (i.e. organised studying and effort management), similar patterns were found. While the deep and strategic approaches of students in the lecture-based, the case-based and the alternated learning environment decreased, they remained more or less the same in the gradually implemented case-based learning environment. The strongest decrease in the deep and strategic approach was found in the case-based learning environment, which scored initially the highest on these approaches. With respect to the surface approach, the strongest decrease was found in the gradually implemented case-based learning environment. The surface approach of students in the alternated learning environment also decreased, but to a lesser extent. The surface approach of students in the lecture-based and the case-based learning environment remained more or less the same. Regarding monitoring studying, a decrease was found in all four learning environments.
Conclusions and discussion
In line with previous research (Marton & Sa¨ljo¨, 1997), this paper confirms the difficulty of enhancing students’ deep approach to learning. Study 1 did not find any dynamics in the deep approach, whereas Study 2 found a decrease in the deep approach in all learning environments, except the gradually implemented casebased learning environment. In this learning environment, the deep approach did not change. So, no learning environment succeeded in enhancing the deep approach. The question remains how we can explain this
First of all, students in our sample were pre-service teachers. Previous research (Baeten et al., 2010) indicates that students in human sciences in general adopt the deepest approach. Our two studies indeed showed that students scored high on the deep approach, and low on the surface approach at the start of the course. Gijbels, Segers, and Struyf (2008) found that the stronger the initial deep approach of students was, the less they change their deep approach in a student-centred learning environment. So, if students’ score on the deep approach is already high in the beginning, this might indicate a ceiling effect and might explain why the score on the deep approach does not increase
A second explanation could be that the deep approach was only dynamic in specific subgroups of students, resulting in no general increase in the whole student group. With respect to this explanation, some researchers (Vanthournout, Donche, Gijbels, & Van Petegem, 2009; Wilson & Fowler, 2005) focused on approaches to learning of subgroups of students. Based on these studies, it seems that especially students scoring low on the deep approach adopt deeper approaches to learning (Vanthournout et al., 2009) or deeper learning strategies (Wilson & Fowler, 2005) in a student-centred learning environment
Thirdly, the moment of measurement might have influenced the results. In the beginning ofthe course students might be more intrinsically motivated and might have good study intentions, which as a result might have encouraged the use of a deep approach. At the end of the course, however, students might experience a higher workload due to e.g. deadlines for other courses and internships, which might have diminished their good intentions of adopting a deep approach and encouraged them to adopt a surface approach, since a perceived high workload has been associated with the adoption of more surface approaches to learning (Baeten et al., 2010). Instead of measuring students’ approaches to learning only in the beginning and at the end ofthe course, it would be interesting to measure them multiple times, for instance, also in the second or third lessons when students understand better what the course is about. In this way, initial strong deep approaches influenced by the fact that, at the beginning of the course, students may be more intrinsically motivated and may have good study intentions can be made more realistic.
Based on the results of both studies, the conclusion that it is difficult to enhance students’ deep approach can be broadened to other approaches to learning variables as well, because students’ scores on monitoring studying, organised studying and effort management did not increase either.
Regarding the surface approach, Study 1 found that students in the student-centred learning environment adopted a stronger surface approach than students in the lecture-based learning environment. Focus group interviews with these students (Struyven et al., 2006) revealed possible explanations for this finding, for instance, high workloads, lack of feedback and structure, fragmented knowledge and group problems in the student-centred learning environment. Ifstudents cannot see the larger picture, an increase in their agreeability with the items of the surface approach subscales, i.e. memorising without understanding, unreflective studying, fragmented knowledge, and unthinking acceptance, is inevitable. In addition, in the student-centred learning environment, it seemed to be more important for students to be organised in their studying than in the lecture-based learning environment in order to cope with these problems (Struyven et al., 2006).
In particular, students beingassessed bya portfolio, peer/co- or a case-based assessmentshowed a strongerincrease in the surface approach, compared to students assessed by means ofa multiple choice examination. The workload of students being assessed by these ‘innovative’ assessment methods might have been higher at the end ofthe course, when the questionnaire was administered, and consequently, might have led to a stronger increase in the surface approach (Baeten et al., 2010). Students being assessed by a portfolio had to hand in their portfolio a few weeks after the post-test, so at the post-test, they were occupied with finalising the portfolio. Students being assessed by means of a case, at that moment, received the examination case they had to study in preparation of the examination. Students being assessed by means ofpeer/co-assessment were facing an assessment conversation with their teacher on the assignments they tackled. These were all new assessment formats for the students and, consequently, these students might have experienced the workload at the post-test higher than students being assessed by means of a multiple choice examination that involved studying the course materials.
In Study 2, students’ surface approaches to learning remained more or less the same in the lecture-based and case-based learning environment. In the learning environments that combined both lectures and case-based learning, the surface approach decreased. So, the suggestion based on Study 1 to combine student-centred assignments with more formal lecture-directed activities proved to be effective for decreasing the surface approach. However, it did not result in an increase of the deep approach
The greatest decrease in the surface approach was found in the gradually implemented case-based learning environment. Also concerning the other approaches to learning variables, the gradually implemented case-based learning environment had the most beneficial outcomes. While the deep and strategic approaches of students in the lecture-based, the case-based and the alternated learning environment decreased, they remained more or less the same in the gradually implemented case-based learning environment. Therefore, the combination in which lectures gradually made way for a student-centred teaching method seemed to be the most appropriate format. Starting with lectures may help students to become familiar with the discipline and outline of the course, and to acquire basic knowledge and appropriate schemata, which can incrementally take over from external instructional guidance (Albanese & Mitchell, 1993; Kirschner et al., 2006) as students progressed towards the student-centred teaching method. Furthermore, students’ strategic approach did not change in the gradually implemented casebased learning environment, so gradually moving from receiving lectures to solving cases in small groups without a lecture-based introduction in advance has helped students to keep their study organisation, time management, effort and concentration at their initial level.
Nevertheless, some limitations are recognised in the present paper. First, approaches to learning were only measured quantitatively. However, it would be complementary to look at what students are exactly doing when being confronted with a case or problem. Making use of qualitative measures, for instance logbooks or think-aloud protocols, in which students explain how they go about the case and which strategies they use, could help to give insight in whether or not they reach a deep level of learning and understanding
Secondly, this paper focused only on the effects of the learning environment, while approaches to learning were influenced by many contextual, perceived contextual and student factors (Baeten et al., 2010). Future research should include other control variables such as, for instance, teacher characteristics. In both Studies 1 and 2, each teacher was asked to follow a specific teaching method or combination of teaching methods. These could differ from what they were used to. Since the teachers’ preferred teaching methods were asked in advance, it was made sure that each teacher taught using the teaching methods with which he or she felt comfortable. Nevertheless, a discrepancy between teachers’ conceptions of learning and teaching and the researchers’ intentions with the learning environment, as suggested by Ko¨ nings, Brand-Gruwel, and van Merrie¨ nboer (2005), or differences in teachers’ previous experiences with the specific teaching methods could have influenced the results. Therefore, differences between the learning environments were studied by means of multilevel analyses which took into account the fact that the students were grouped or nested within a unit on a higher level, in this case the teacher. Besides the learning environment and teaching programme, no additional variables were included at the teacher level. Adding additional variables at this level, for instance familiarity with the teaching methods, may help to explain differences between teachers. However, they were not taken into account in this study. Concerning school characteristics, the multilevel analysis indicates no significant variance between schools. Therefore, the interdependence between students in the same school was not incorporated.
Finally, in the case of classroom innovations, the question rises whether the effects of the content of the innovation (i.e. differences in teaching methods) are being measured or unintended ‘side’- effects (e.g. the learning process of the teachers, who need to adapt to different circumstances). Therefore, replicating this research is advisable in order to confirm the results.
Despite these limitations, the present paper shows the added value of gradually implementing case-based learning in terms of students’ approaches to learning. Nevertheless, it remains difficult to enhance the deep approach, monitoring studying, organised studying and effort management
0 Response to "jurnal kedua"
Post a Comment