Does Outcomes Based Teaching and Learning Make a Difference in Students’ Learning Approach?

  • Xiaoyan Wang
  • Yelin Su
  • Stephen Cheung
  • Eva Wong
  • Theresa Kwong
  • Keng T. Tan
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6837)

Abstract

This paper investigates whether instructors’ adoption of outcomes based teaching and learning (OBTL) has any impact on university students’ deep learning approach, which is highly correlated with students’ learning outcomes. A multi-method model with a combination of qualitative and quantitative design was adopted, using document analysis, interviews, and survey. The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) results suggested that regardless individual differences, students would adjust their learning approaches and study behaviors in response to the classroom teaching and learning environment. Students in more “OBTL courses” were more likely to adopt deep learning approaches in their study of a particular course.

Keywords

OBTL Student Learning Approach Student Learning Experience 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Engelbrecht, J., Harding, A.: The Impact of the Transition to Outcomes-based Teaching on University Preparedness in Mathematics in South Africa. Mathematics Education Research Journal 20(2), 57–70 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Au, O., Kwan, R.: Experience on Outcome-Based Teaching and Learning. In: Wang, F.L., Fong, J., Zhang, L., Lee, V.S.K. (eds.) ICHL 2009. LNCS, vol. 5685, pp. 133–139. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pang, M., Ho, T., Man, R.: Learning Approaches and Outcome Based Teaching and Learning: A Case Study in Hong Kong, China. Journal of Teaching in International Business 20, 106–122 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Biggs, J., Tang, C.: Teaching for Quality Learning at University: What the Students Does. McGraw-Hill company, NY (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rees, C.: The Problem with Outcomes-based Curricula in Medical Education: Insights from Educational Theory. Medical Education 38(6), 593–598 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Spady, W.G.: Organising for Results: the Basis of Authentic Restructuring and Reform. Educational Leadership 46, 4–8 (1988)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Harden, R.M.: Developments in Outcome-based Education. Med. Teacher 24, 117–120 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schmeck, R. (ed.): Learning Strategies and Learning Styles. Plenum, NY (1988)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Marton, F., Saljo, R.: On Qualitative Differences in Learning-1: Outcome and Process. British Journal of Educational Psychology 46, 4–11 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Balasooriya, C., Toohey, S., Hughs, C.: The Cross-over Phenomenon: Unexpected Patterns of Change in Students’ Approaches to Learning. Studies in Higher Education 34(7), 781–794 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Biggs, J.B.: Student Approaches to Learning and Studying. Australian Council for Educational Research, Melbourne (1987) Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Entwistle, N.: Promoting Deep Learning through Teaching and Assessment: Conceptual Frameworks and Educational Context. In: TLRP Conference (2000) Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kember, D., Charlesworth, M., Davies, H., McKay, J., Storr, V.: 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 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Prosser, M., Trigwell, K.: Relations between Perceptions of the Teaching environment and approaches to teaching. British Journal of Educational Psychology 67(1), 25–35 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Biggs, J., Kember, D., Leung, D.Y.P.: The Revised Two-Factor Study Process Questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology 71, 133–149 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ames, C.: Classrooms: Goals, Structures, and Student Motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology 84(3), 261–271 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chickering, A., Gamson, Z.: Seven Principles of Good Practice in Undergraduate Education. AAHE Bulletin 39, 3–7 (1987)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xiaoyan Wang
    • 1
  • Yelin Su
    • 1
  • Stephen Cheung
    • 1
  • Eva Wong
    • 1
  • Theresa Kwong
    • 1
  • Keng T. Tan
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Holistic Teaching and LearningHong Kong Baptist UniversityKowloon TongHong Kong

Personalised recommendations