Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byAubrey Atkinson Modified over 9 years ago
1
Approaches to learning and assessment preferences in a portfolio-based learning environment Marlies Baeten Filip Dochy Katrien Struyven K.U.Leuven, Belgium
2
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
3
Introduction Constructivist teaching methods Constructive Cumulative Self-regulated Goal-oriented Situated Collaborative Individually different
4
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)
5
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
6
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?
7
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
8
Method Research instruments –Approaches to learning Revised Two Factor Study Process Questionnaire (Biggs, Kember & Leung, 2001) –Assessment preferences Assessment Preferences Inventory (Birenbaum, 1994)
9
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
10
Method Procedure –Pre- and post-test design –Instruction Incorporation of constructivist design principles Lectures –Portfolio assessment Formative function Summative function
11
Results Do students’ approaches to learning change in a portfolio-based learning environment? Paired samples t-test MSDtDfp DeepPre Post 2.57 2.50 0.60 0.55 -1.4861360.140 SurfacePre Post 2.54 2.69 0.65 3.5461360.001
12
Results Do students’ assessment preferences change in a portfolio-based learning environment? Paired samples t-test
13
Results MSDtDfp Teacher- driven Pre Post 4.53 4.44 0.54 0.65 -1.6691370.097 Student participation Pre Post 3.59 3.47 0.60 0.61 -2.4611370.015 PermanentPre Post 3.39 3.26 0.64 0.66 -2.6241370.010 New modesPre Post 3.03 2.99 0.96 0.95 -0.5731370.567 Higher order thinking Pre Post 2.96 2.88 0.55 0.58 -1.9501370.053
14
Results What relationships are found between approaches to learning and assessment preferences? Correlational analyses
15
Results Deep approach to learning permanent evaluation r pre-test = 0.259 and r post-test = 0.315 tasks that require higher order thinking r pre-test = 0.297 and r post-test = 0.259 student participation in exams r pre-test = 0.185 new modes of assessment r post-test = 0.247
16
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
17
Suggestions further research Clarifying students’ (negative) experiences Various forms of portfolio assessment Duration Control group
18
Contact Marlies.Baeten@ped.kuleuven.be
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.