Approaches to learning and assessment preferences in a portfolio-based learning environment Marlies...

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-2F API

Deep approach Student participation in exams

Surface approach Tasks 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

M SD t Df p

Deep PrePost

2.572.50

0.600.55

-1.486 136 0.140

Surface PrePost

2.542.69

0.650.65

3.546 136 0.001

Results

• Do students’ assessment preferences change in a portfolio-based learning environment?

• Paired samples t-test

Results

M SD t Df p

Teacher-driven

PrePost

4.534.44

0.540.65

-1.669 137 0.097

Student participation

PrePost

3.593.47

0.600.61

-2.461 137 0.015

Permanent PrePost

3.393.26

0.640.66

-2.624 137 0.010

New modes PrePost

3.032.99

0.960.95

-0.573 137 0.567

Higher orderthinking

PrePost

2.962.88

0.550.58

-1.950 137 0.053

Results

• What relationships are found between approaches to learning and assessment preferences?

• Correlational analyses

Results

• Deep approach to learning• permanent evaluation

rpre-test = 0.259 and rpost-test = 0.315

• tasks that require higher order thinkingrpre-test = 0.297 and rpost-test = 0.259

• student participation in examsrpre-test = 0.185

• new modes of assessmentrpost-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

• Marlies.Baeten@ped.kuleuven.be