European Journal of Psychology of Education

, Volume 28, Issue 2, pp 315–336 | Cite as

Enhancing students’ approaches to learning: the added value of gradually implementing case-based learning

  • Marlies BaetenEmail author
  • Filip Dochy
  • Katrien Struyven


Previous research has shown the difficulty of enhancing students’ approaches to learning, in particular the deep approach, through student-centred teaching methods such as problem- and case-based learning. This study investigates whether mixed instructional methods combining case-based learning and lectures have the power to enhance students’ approaches to learning, compared to instructional methods using either case-based learning or lectures. A quasi-experimental research was set up using a pre-/post-test design. Participants were 1,098 first-year student teachers taking a course on child development. Statistical analysis showed that students in a gradually implemented case-based setting, in which lectures gradually made way for case-based learning, scored significantly higher on the scales organised studying and effort management and significantly lower on the surface approach, compared to students in a completely case-based setting. Therefore, students in a gradually implemented case-based setting worked in a better organised way and spent more effort and concentration than students who experienced only case-based learning. Nevertheless, the gradually implemented case-based setting did not encourage students to apply deep approaches that aimed at understanding. Quantitative content analysis revealed that students in the gradually implemented case-based setting especially appreciated the variation in teaching methods and the specific combination of lectures and case-based learning.


Case-based learning Lectures Approaches to learning Perceptions 



The contribution of the first author is supported by an Aspirant FWO grant of the Fund for Scientific Research Flanders (FWO Vlaanderen).


  1. Albanese, M., & Mitchell, S. (1993). Problem-based learning: A review of the literature on its outcome and implementation issues. Academic Medicine, 68, 52–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alfieri, L., Brooks, P., Aldrich, N., & Tenenbaum, H. (2011). Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Azer, S. (2009). What makes a great lecture? Use of lectures in a hybrid PBL curriculum. The Kaohsiung Journal of Medical Sciences, 25(3), 109–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baeten, M., Kyndt, E., Struyven, K., & Dochy, F. (2010). Using student-centred learning environments to stimulate deep approaches to learning: Factors encouraging or discouraging their effectiveness. Educational Research Review, 5, 243–260.Google Scholar
  5. Baeten, M., Dochy, F., & Struyven, K. (2011a, August). The effects of case-based and lecture-based learning on students’ performance. Poster presented at the Junior Researchers Conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, Exeter, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
  6. Baeten, M., Dochy, F., & Struyven, K. (2011b). Using students’ motivational and learning profiles in investigating their perceptions and achievement in case-based and lecture-based learning environments. Educational Studies.Google Scholar
  7. Beijaard, D., Verloop, N., & Vermunt, J. (2000). Teachers’ perceptions of professional identity: An exploratory study from a personal knowledge perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(7), 749–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Biggs, J. B. (2001). Enhancing learning: A matter of style or approach? In R. J. Sternberg & L. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles (pp. 73–102). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. Biggs, J., Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. P. (2001). The revised two-factor study process questionnaire: R-SPQ-2 F. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(1), 133–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bonwell, C. (1996). Enhancing the lecture: Revitalising a traditional format. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 67, 31–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bruning, R., Siwatu, K., Liu, X., PytlikZillig, L., Horn, C., Sic, S., & Carlson, D. (2008). Introducing teaching cases with face-to-face and computer-mediated discussion: Two multi-classroom quasi-experiments. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 299–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cannon, R., & Newble, D. (2000). A handbook for teachers in universities and colleges. A guide to improving teaching methods (4th ed.). London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  13. Choi, I., Lee, S., & Kang, J. (2009). Implementing a case-based e-learning environment in a lecture-oriented anaesthesiology class: Do learning styles matter in complex problem solving over time? British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(5), 933–947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cope, C., & Staehr, L. (2005). Improving students’ learning approaches through intervention in an information systems learning environment. Studies in Higher Education, 30(2), 181–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Davis, B., & Sumara, D. (2002). Constructivist discourses and the field of education: Problems and possibilities. Educational Theory, 52(4), 409–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Diseth, A. (2007). Approaches to learning, course experience and examination grade among undergraduate psychology students: Testing of mediator effects and construct validity. Studies in Higher Education, 32(3), 373–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dochy, F., Segers, M., Van den Bossche, P., & Gijbels, D. (2003). Effects of problem-based learning: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 13, 533–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Elen, J., Clarebout, G., Léonard, R., & Lowyck, J. (2007). Student-centred and teacher-centred learning environments: What students think. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(1), 105–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Engle, R., & Faux, R. (2006). Towards productive disciplinary engagement of prospective teachers in educational psychology: Comparing two methods of case-based instruction. Teaching Educational Psychology, 1(2), 1–22.Google Scholar
  21. Entwistle, N. (1991). Approaches to learning and perceptions of the learning environment. Introduction to the special issue. Higher Education, 22(3), 201–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Entwistle, N., & McCune, V. (2004). The conceptual bases of study strategy inventories. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 315–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Entwistle, N., McCune, V., & Hounsell, D. (2002). Occassional report 1: Approaches to studying and perceptions of university teaching-learning environments: concepts, measures and preliminary findings. ETL Project, Universities of Edinburgh, Coventry and DurhamGoogle Scholar
  24. Ertmer, P., Newby, T., & MacDougall, M. (1996). Students’ responses and approaches to case-based instruction: The role of reflective self-regulation. American Educational Research Journal, 33(3), 719–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gielen, S., Dochy, F., & Dierick, S. (2003). Evaluating the consequential validity of new modes of assessment: The influence of assessment on learning, including pre-, post-, and true assessment effects. In M. Segers, F. Dochy, & E. Cascallar (Eds.), Optimising new modes of assessment: In search of qualities and standards (pp. 37–54). Nederland: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gijbels, D., Segers, M., & Struyf, E. (2008). Constructivist learning environments and the (im)possibility to change students’ perceptions of assessment demands and approaches to learning. Instructional Science, 36(5–6), 431–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hannafin, M., Hill, J., & Land, S. (1997). Student-centered learning and interactive multimedia: Status, issues, and implications. Contemporary Education, 68(2), 94–99.Google Scholar
  28. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hung, W. (2009). The 9-step problem design process for problem-based learning: Application of the 3C3R model. Educational Research Review, 4, 118–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kember, D., Charlesworth, M., Davies, H., McKay, J., & Stott, V. (1997). Evaluating the effectiveness of educational innovations: Using the study process questionnaire to show that meaningful learning occurs. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 23(2), 141–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Knight, J., Fulop, R., Márquez-Magaña, L., & Tanner, K. (2008). Investigative cases and student outcomes in an upper-division cell and molecular biology laboratory course at a minority-serving institution. CBE Life Sciences Education, 7, 382–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kurz, T., Llama, G., & Savenye, W. (2005). Issues and challenges of creating video cases to be used with preservice teachers. TechTrends, 49(4), 67–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lake, D. (2001). Student performance and perceptions of a lecture-based course compared with the same course utilizing group discussion. Physical Therapy, 81(3), 896–902.Google Scholar
  35. Lea, S., Stephenson, D., & Troy, J. (2003). Higher education students' attitudes to student-centred learning: Beyond 'educational bulimia'? Studies in Higher Education, 28(3), 321–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Loyens, S. M. M., & Rikers, R. M. J. P. (2011). Instruction based on inquiry. In R. Mayer & P. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction (pp. 361–381). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Loyens, S. M. M., Rikers, R. M. J. P., & Schmidt, H. G. (2007). The impact of students’ conceptions of constructivist assumptions on academic achievement and drop-out. Studies in Higher Education, 32(5), 581–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1997). Approaches to learning. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell, & N. Entwistle (Eds.), The experience of learning. implications for teaching and studying in higher education (2nd edn) (pp. 39–58). Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.Google Scholar
  39. Maudsley, G. (1999). Do we all mean the same thing by “problem-based learning”? A review of the concepts and a formulation of the ground rules. Academic Medicine, 74(2), 178–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mayer, R. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mayo, J. (2002). Case-based instruction: A technique for increasing conceptual application in introductory psychology. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 15, 65–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mayo, J. (2004). Using case-based instruction to bridge the gap between theory and practice in psychology of adjustment. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 17, 137–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. McNaught, C., Lau, W., Lam, P., Hui, M., & Au, P. (2005). The dilemma of case-based teaching and learning in science in Hong Kong: Students need it, want it, but may not value it. International Journal of Science Education, 27(9), 1017–1036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Merseth, K. (1991). The early history of case-based instruction: Insights for teacher education today. Journal of Teacher Education, 42(4), 243–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mitchem, K., Fitzgerald, G., Hollingsead, C., Koury, K., Miller, K., & Tsai, H. (2008). Enhancing case-based learning in teacher education through online discussions: Structure and facilitation. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 19(2), 331–349.Google Scholar
  46. Motschnig-Pitrik, R., & Holzinger, A. (2002). Student-centered teaching meets new media: Concept and case study. Educational Technology and Society, 5(4), 160–172.Google Scholar
  47. Nijhuis, J., Segers, M., & Gijselaers, W. (2008). The extent of variability in learning strategies and students’ perceptions of the learning environment. Learning and Instruction, 18, 121–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Perceived competence scales. 2008. University of Rochester. Retrieved on January 4, 2008, from
  49. Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Renkl, A. (2008). Why constructivists should not talk about constructivist learning environments: A commentary on Loyens and Gijbels (2008). Instructional Science, 37, 495–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Richardson, J., Dawson, L., Sadlo, G., Jenkins, V., & McInnes, J. (2007). Perceived academic quality and approaches to studying in the health professions. Medical Teacher, 29, 108–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schwinger, M., Steinmayr, R., & Spinath, B. (2009). How do motivational regulation strategies affect achievement: Mediated by effort management and moderated by intelligence. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 621–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sivan, A., Wong Leung, R., Woon, C., & Kember, D. (2000). An implementation of active learning and its effect on the quality of student learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 37(4), 381–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Struyven, K., Dochy, F., Janssens, S., & Gielen, S. (2006). On the dynamics of students’ approaches to learning: The effects of the teaching/learning environment. Learning and Instruction, 16, 279–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Struyven, K., Dochy, F., & Janssens, S. (2008a). Students' likes and dislikes regarding student-activating and lecture-based educational settings: Consequences for students' perceptions of the learning environment, student learning and performance. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 23, 295–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Struyven, K., Dochy, F., Janssens, S., & Gielen, S. (2008b). Students’ experiences with contrasting learning environments: The added value of students’ perceptions. Learning Environments Research, 11, 83–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tait, H., Entwistle, N., & McCune, V. (1998). ASSIST: A reconceptualisation of the Appoaches to Studying Inventory. In C. Rust (Ed.), Improving student learning: Improving students as learners (pp. 262–271). Oxford: Oxford Brookes University, Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development.Google Scholar
  58. Tynjälä, P. (2008). Perspectives into learning at the workplace. Educational Research Review, 3(2), 130–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Van den Berg, E., & Visscher-Voerman, I. (2000). Multimedia cases in elementary science teacher education: Design and development of a prototype. Education and Information Technologies, 5(2), 119–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Vansteenkiste, M., Sierens, E., Soenens, B., Luyckx, K., & Lens, W. (2009). Motivational profiles from a self-determination perspective: The quality of motivation matters. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 671–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Veenman, M. V. J. (2005). The assessment of metacognitive skills: What can be learned from multi-method designs? In C. Artelt & B. Moschner (Eds.), Lernstrategien und Metakognition: Implikationen für Forschung und Praxis (pp. 77–99). Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  62. Vermunt, J., & Verloop, N. (1999). Congruence and friction between learning and teaching. Learning and Instruction, 9(3), 257–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wilson, K., & Fowler, J. (2005). Assessing the impact of learning environments on students’ approaches to learning: Comparing conventional and action learning designs. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(1), 87–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Instituto Superior de Psicologia Aplicada, Lisboa, Portugal and Springer Science+Business Media BV 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Research on Professional Learning and Development, Corporate Training and Lifelong Learning(KU Leuven)LeuvenBelgium
  2. 2.Educational Sciences DepartmentVrije Universiteit BrusselBrusselBelgium

Personalised recommendations