Higher Education

, Volume 56, Issue 2, pp 221–239 | Cite as

Quantitative and qualitative measures of student learning at university level



This paper reports the use of quantitative and qualitative measures of university student learning during teaching in psychiatry. Concept mapping, pre-and post test scores and performance in written assignments were used to measure the quality of change in personal understanding and to show the ways that the knowledge-targets of the course were achieved. The data show that: (1) Concept mapping can be used to explore personal understanding because it facilitates discrete statements of meaning. (2) These personal statements can be compared through time to assess change. (3) Specific criteria can be used to measure the quality of the change from one statement to another so that the different qualities of change that occur can be made-visible in the course of teaching. The approach is discussed in the broader context of learning theory and teaching practice. We show in particular, that prior-knowledge is an important determinant of learning because it affects the sense that can be made of taught material.


Concept mapping Learning and teaching Higher education Pedagogy 


  1. Ausubel, D. P. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. New York: Grune and Stratton.Google Scholar
  2. Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  3. Ausubel, D. P. (2000). The acquisition and retention of knowledge: A cognitive view. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  4. Ausubel, D. P., Novak, J. D., & Hanessan, H. (1978). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  5. Biggs, J. (1993). What do inventories of students’ learning processes really measure? A theoretical review and clarification. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 3–19.Google Scholar
  6. Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at University: What the student does. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, S., & Knight, P. (1994). Assessing learning in higher education. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  8. Buzan, T., & Buzan, B. (2000). The concept map book. London: BBC Worldwide Ltd.Google Scholar
  9. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Entwistle, N., McCune, V., & Walker, P. (2001). Conceptions, styles and approaches within higher education: Analytic abstractions, everyday experience. In R. J. Sternberg & L.-F. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on thinking, learning and cognitive styles (pp. 103–136). London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Entwistle, N. J., & McCune, V. (2004). The conceptual basis of study strategy inventories. Educational Psychology Review, 16, 325–345.Google Scholar
  12. Entwistle, N. J., Meyer, J. H. F., & Tait, H. (1991). Student failure: disintegrated perceptions of studying and the learning environment. Higher Education, 21, 249–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Entwistle, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (2002). Personal understanding and target understanding: mapping influences on the outcomes of learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 321–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Entwistle, N. J., & Tait, H. (1994). Approaches to studying and preferences for teaching in higher education. Instructional Evaluation and Faculty Development, 14, 2–10.Google Scholar
  15. Fisher, K. M. (2000). Overview of knowledge mapping. In K. M. Fisher, J. H. Wandersee, & D. E. Moody (Eds.), Mapping biology knowledge (pp. 5–23). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  16. Hay, D. B. (2007). Using concept maps to measure deep, surface and non-learning outcomes. Studies in Higher Education, 32(1), 39–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hay, D. B., & Kinchin, I. M. (2006). Using concept maps to reveal conceptual typologies. Education and Training, 48, 79–83.Google Scholar
  18. Hay, D. B., & Kinchin, I. M. (2007). Using concept mapping to make concrete measures of learning quality in higher education. Proceedings of the European Learning Styles Conference, Dublin, Ireland, June 11–14, 2007.Google Scholar
  19. Hay, D. B., Kehoe, C., Miquel, M. E., Kinchin, I. M., Hatzapinagos, S., Keevil, S. F., & Lygo-Baker, S. (in press). Measuring the quality of e-learning. British Journal of Educational Technology.Google Scholar
  20. Hay, D. B., Kinchin, I. M., & Lygo-Baker, S. (in press). Making learning visible: the role of concept mapping in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 33(3).Google Scholar
  21. Jarvis, P. (1992). Paradoxes of learning. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  22. Jarvis, P. (1998). From practice to theory. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  23. Jarvis, P. (2006). Towards a comprehensive theory of human learning: Lifelong learning and the learning society, vol. 1. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Jarvis, P., Holford, J., & Griffin, C. (1998). The theory and practice of learning. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  25. Kember, D. (1996). The intention to both memorise and understand: another approach to learning? Higher Education, 31, 341–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kember, D. (2000). Misconceptions about the learning approaches, motivation and study practices of Asian students. Higher Education, 40(1), 99–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kinchin, I. M., & Alias, M. (2005). Exploiting variations in concept mapping morphology as a lesson planning tool for trainee teachers in higher education. Journal of In-service Education, 31, 569–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kinchin, I. M., & Hay, D. B. (2007). The myth of the research-led teacher. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 33(1), 43–61.Google Scholar
  29. Kinchin, I. M., Hay, D. B., & Adams, A. (2000). How a qualitative approach to concept map analysis can be used to aid learning by illustrating patterns of conceptual development. Educational Research, 42(1), 43–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kinchin, I. M., Lygo-Baker, S., & Hay, D. B. (in press). Universities as centers of non-learning. Studies in Higher Education, 33(1).Google Scholar
  31. Kolb, D., & Fry, R. (1975). Towards and applied theory of experiential learning. In C. L. Cooper (Ed.), Theories of group processes (pp. 103–136). London: J. Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  32. Lauirillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: A framework for the effective use of learning technologies (second ed.). London and New York: Routledge/Falmer.Google Scholar
  33. Marton, F. (1981). Phenomenography—describing conceptions of the world around us. Instructional Science, 10, 177–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Marton, F. (1986). Phenomenography—a research approach to investigating different understandings of reality. Journal of Thought, 21(3), 28–49.Google Scholar
  35. Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning: I. Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 115–127.Google Scholar
  36. Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1984). Approaches to learning. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell, & N. Entwistle (Eds.), The experience of learning (pp. 36–55). Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.Google Scholar
  37. Meyer, J., & Land, R. (2003). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: linkages to ways of thinking and practicing within the disciplines. (Occasional Report 4, Enhancing Teaching and learning environments in undergraduate courses, Edinburgh; ETL Project).Google Scholar
  38. Meyer, J., & Land, R. (2005). Overcoming barriers to student understanding. London: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
  39. Mintzes, J. J., Wandersee, J. H., & Novak, J. D. (1997). Meaningful learning in science; the human constructivist perspective. In G. D. Phye (Ed.), Handbook of academic learning (pp. 405–447). Orlando: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nicholls, G. (2002). Developing teaching and learning in higher education. London: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
  41. Novak, J. D. (1998). Learning creating and using knowledge: concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations. Mahaw: New Jersey & London’ Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  42. Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Novak, J. D., & Musonda, D. (1991). A twelve-year longitudinal study of science concept learning. American Educational Research Journal, 28(1), 117–153.Google Scholar
  44. Novak, J. D., & Symington, D. J. (1982). Concept mapping for curriculum development. Victoria Institute for Educational Research Bulletin, 43, 3–11.Google Scholar
  45. Perkins, D. (2006). Constructivism and troublesome knowledge. In Meyer, J. H. F., & Land, R. (Eds.), Overcoming barriers to student understanding: threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (pp. 33–47). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  46. Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding learning and teaching: the experience in higher education. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Ramsden, P. (2002). Learning to teach in higher education. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  48. Rowntree, D. (1987). Assessing Students: How Shall We Know Them? London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  49. Säljö, R. (1975). Qualitative differences in learning as a function of the learner’s conception of the task. Gothenburg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
  50. Scheja, M. (2006). Delayed understanding and staying in phase: Student’s perceptions of their study situation. Higher Education, 52, 421–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.King’s Institute of Learning and Teaching (KILT)Kings College LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.The Institute of Psychiatry (IOP)LondonUK

Personalised recommendations