Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

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

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Learning Environments Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32(3), 347–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birenbaum, M. (1997). Assessment preferences and their relationship to learning strategies and orientations. Higher Education, 33(1), 71–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, E. (1992). Work-load and the quality of student learning. Studies in Higher Education, 17(2), 141–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clifford, V. A. (1999). The development of autonomous learners in a university setting. Higher Education Research and Development, 18(1), 115–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Entwistle, N. J. (1991). Approaches to learning and perceptions of the learning environment: Introduction to the special issue. Higher Education, 22, 201–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Entwistle, N. J., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. London: Croom Helm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Entwistle, N., & Tait, H. (1990). Approaches to learning, evaluations of teaching, and preferences for contrasting academic environments. Higher Education, 19(2), 169–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, T. E., & Mark, B. L. (1995). Teaching in the information age: Active learning techniques to empower students. Reference Librarian, 51–52, 105–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, D., & Tangney, B. (2006). Adapting to intelligence profile in an adaptive educational system. Interacting with computers, 18(3), 385–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kember, D. (2004). Interpreting student workload and the factors which shape students’ perceptions of their workload. Studies in Higher Education, 29(2), 165–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield, B. (1989). Teaching social studies: Learning from past experiences. History and Social Science Teacher, 24(2), 87–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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).

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyers, C., & Jones, T. B. (1993). Promoting active learning: Strategies for the college classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Incorporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Novak, S., Shah, S., Candidate, D., Wilson, J. P., Lawson, K. A., & Salzman, R. D. (2006). Pharmacy students’ learning styles before and after a problem-based learning experience. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 70(4), Article No. 74. Retrieved March 20, 2007, from http://www.ajpe.org/view.asp?art=aj700474&pdf=yes.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oxford, R. L. (1997). Constructivism: Shape-shifting, substance and teacher education applications. Peabody Journal of Education, 72(1), 35–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perkins, D. N. (1991). What constructivism demands from learners. Educational technology, 31(9), 19–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perkins, D. V., & Saris, R. N. (2001). A “jigsaw classroom” technique for undergraduate statistics courses. Teaching of Psychology, 28(2), 111–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramsden, P. (1991). A performance indicator of teaching quality in higher education: The course experience questionnaire. Studies in Higher Education, 16(2), 129–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, D. (1997). Student perceptions and learning outcomes of computer-assisted versus traditional instruction in physiology. Advances in Physiology Education, 18(1), S55–S58.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Segers M., Dochy F., & Cascallar E. (Eds.). (2003). Optimising new modes of assessment: In search of qualities and standards. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silberman, M. (1996). Active learning: 101 strategies to teach any subject. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sobral, D. T. (1995). The problem-based learning approach as an enhancement factor of personal meaningfulness of learning. Higher Education, 29(1), 93–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Terwel, J. (1999). Constructivism and its implications for curriculum theory and practice. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31(2), 195–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tillema, H., & Smith, K. (2000). Learning from portfolios: Differential use of feedback in portfolio construction. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 26, 193–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Waterhouse, F. (1999). Relations between teachers’ approaches to teaching and students’ approaches to learning. Higher Education, 37(1), 57–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tynjälä, P. (1997). Developing education students’ conceptions of the learning process in different learning environments. Learning and Instruction, 7(3), 277–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vermunt, J. D. (1998). The regulation of constructive learning processes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68(2), 149–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vermunt, J. D., & Verloop, N. (1999). Congruence and friction between learning and teaching. Learning and Instruction, 9(3), 257–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Glasersfeld, E. (1988). Constructivism as a scientific method. Scientific Reasoning Research Institute Newsletter, 3(2), 8–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, C. (1996). Merging technology and constructivism in teacher education. Teacher Education and Practice, 12(1), 62–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katrien Struyven.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Struyven, K., Dochy, F., Janssens, S. et al. Students’ experiences with contrasting learning environments: The added value of students’ perceptions. Learning Environ Res 11, 83–109 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-008-9041-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-008-9041-8

Keywords

Navigation