Approaches to learning and assessment preferences in a portfolio-based learning environment Marlies Baeten Filip Dochy Katrien Struyven K.U.Leuven, Belgium

Introduction Society today demands life-long learners and professional experts  Deep approach to learning Intention: to understand, to distil meaning Strategy: to relate ideas, to look for patterns How? –Constructivist teaching methods –Innovative assessment

Introduction Constructivist teaching methods Constructive Cumulative Self-regulated Goal-oriented Situated Collaborative Individually different

Introduction Innovative assessment Increasing responsibility of the student Numerous measures Higher order-skills Multiple dimensions of intelligence Authentic and contextualised Integration of assessment in the learning process e.g. portfolio assessment (this study)

Introduction Empirical findings –Stimulating deep approaches  Mixed results  One plausible explanation: Combination of constructivist design principles and lectures?? The current research –Combination of constructivist design principles and lectures in a portfolio-based learning environment –Taking into account students’ assessment preferences

Research questions Do students’ approaches to learning change in a portfolio-based learning environment? Do students’ assessment preferences change in a portfolio-based learning environment? What relationships are found between approaches to learning and assessment preferences?

Method Participants –First-year professional Bachelor’s degree students studying Office Management –During the course ‘Intercultural communication and training’ –Pre- (N=169) and post- (N=150) test

Method Research instruments –Approaches to learning Revised Two Factor Study Process Questionnaire (Biggs, Kember & Leung, 2001) –Assessment preferences Assessment Preferences Inventory (Birenbaum, 1994)

Method R-SPQ-2FAPI Deep approachStudent participation in exams Surface approachTasks that require higher order thinking New modes of assessment Permanent evaluation Teacher driven preparation of exams

Method Procedure –Pre- and post-test design –Instruction Incorporation of constructivist design principles Lectures –Portfolio assessment Formative function Summative function

Results Do students’ approaches to learning change in a portfolio-based learning environment? Paired samples t-test MSDtDfp DeepPre Post SurfacePre Post

Results Do students’ assessment preferences change in a portfolio-based learning environment? Paired samples t-test

Results MSDtDfp Teacher- driven Pre Post Student participation Pre Post PermanentPre Post New modesPre Post Higher order thinking Pre Post

Results What relationships are found between approaches to learning and assessment preferences? Correlational analyses

Results Deep approach to learning permanent evaluation r pre-test = and r post-test = tasks that require higher order thinking r pre-test = and r post-test = student participation in exams r pre-test = new modes of assessment r post-test = 0.247

Conclusion Portfolio-based learning environment –Increasing surface approaches to learning –Decreasing assessment preferences Student participation Permanent evaluation Portfolio assessment –Deep approach to learning ~ preference for tasks that require higher order thinking, permanent evaluation and new modes of assessment

Suggestions further research Clarifying students’ (negative) experiences Various forms of portfolio assessment Duration Control group

Contact