Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Students’ approaches to learning and assessment preferences in a portfolio-based learning environment

  • Published:
Instructional Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study focused on the relationships between experiences with portfolio assessment, students’ approaches to learning and their assessment preferences by means of a pre- and post-test design in an authentic class setting. The participants were 138 first-year professional bachelor’s degree students in office management. They were assessed by means of portfolio assessment in a course that combined constructivist design principles and lectures. Approaches to learning and assessment preferences were measured by means of the Revised Two-Factor Study Process Questionnaire and the Assessment Preferences Inventory. Results showed that students’ preferences for student participation in examination and for permanent evaluation decreased significantly. Moreover, deep approaches were not enhanced. On the contrary, surface learning increased significantly. Notwithstanding, the surface approach proved to be a significant negative predictor of the portfolio assessment score.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arter, J. A., & Spandel, V. (1992). Using portfolios of student work in instruction and assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 11(1), 36–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Chaim, D., & Zoller, U. (1997). Examination-type preferences of secondary school students and their teachers in the science disciplines. Instructional Science, 25(5), 347–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32(3), 347–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J. (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). Marwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university (2nd ed.). Birkshire, UK: The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J., Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. P. (2001). The revised two-factor study process questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(1), 133–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birenbaum, M. (1994). Toward adaptive assessment—the students angle. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 20(2), 239–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birenbaum, M. (1996). Assessment 2000: Towards a pluralistic approach to assessment. In M. Birenbaum & F. Dochy (Eds.), Assessment of achievements, learning processes and prior knowledge (pp. 9–29). Boston: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birenbaum, M. (1997). Assessment preferences and their relationship to learning strategies and orientations. Higher Education, 33(1), 71–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birenbaum, M. (2007). Assessment and instruction preferences and their relationship with test anxiety and learning strategies. Higher Education, 53(6), 749–768.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birenbaum, M., & Feldman, R. A. (1998). Relationships between learning patterns and attitudes towards two assessment formats. Educational Research, 40(1), 90–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birenbaum, M., & Rosenau, S. (2006). Assessment preferences, learning orientations and learning strategies of preservice and inservice teachers. Journal of Education for Teaching, 32(2), 213–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boes, W., & Wante, D. (2001). Portfolio: Het verhaal van een student in ontwikkeling. Portfolio als instrument voor de begeleiding en evaluatie van studenten in de lerarenopleiding: Literatuurstudie, ontwikkeling van een portfoliomodel en exploratief onderzoek (Portfolio: The story of a student in development. Portfolio as an instrument to guide and assess students in teacher education: Study of literature, development of a portfolio and explorative research). Unpublished Licentiate Thesis, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Faculteit Psychologie en Pedagogische Wetenschappen, Leuven.

  • Boud, D. (1990). Assessment and the promotion of academic values. Studies in Higher Education, 15(1), 101–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, A., & LeMahieu, P. (2003). Assessment for learning: Reconsidering portfolio and research evidence. In M. Segers, F. Dochy, & E. Cascallar (Eds.), Optimising new modes of assessment: In search of qualities and standards (pp. 141–169). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • De Corte, E. (1996). Actief leren binnen krachtige onderwijsleeromgevingen (Active learning in powerful learning environments). Impuls, 26(4), 145–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Corte, E., Elen, J., Janssens, S., Struyf, E., Van Damme, J., Vandenberghe, R., et al. (1999). Algemene didactiek. Proefversie voor de academische lerarenopleiding aan de K. U. Leuven (General didactics. Test version for the academic teacher education of the K.U. Leuven). Deurne: Wolters Plantyn.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dochy, F. (2005, 23 August). ‘Learning lasting for life’ and ‘assessment’: How far did we progress? Presidential Address at the EARLI Conference, Nicosia, Cyprus.

  • Dochy, F., & Moerkerke, G. (1997). Assessment as a major influence on learning and instruction. International Journal of Educational Research, 27(5), 415–432.

    Google Scholar 

  • Entwistle, N. (1988). Motivational factors in students’ approaches to learning. In R. R. Schmeck (Ed.), Learning strategies and learning styles (pp. 21–51). New York: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Entwistle, N. J. (1991). Approaches to learning and perceptions of the learning environment. Introduction to the special issue. Higher Education, 22(3), 201–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Entwistle, N. (1997). Contrasting perspectives on learning. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell, & N. Entwistle (Eds.), The experience of learning. Implications for teaching and studying in higher education (2nd ed., pp. 3–22). Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Entwistle, N., McCune, V., & Hounsell, J. (2003). Investigating ways of enhancing university teaching-learning environments: Measuring students’ approaches to studying and perceptions of teaching. In E. De Corte, L. Verschaffel, N. Entwistle, & J. Van Merriënboer (Eds.), Powerful learning environments: Unravelling basic components and dimensions (pp. 89–108). Amsterdam: Pergamon, Elsevier Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Entwistle, N. J., Meyer, J. H. F., & Tait, H. (1991). Student failure: Disintegrated patterns of study strategies and perceptions of the learning environment. Higher Education, 21(2), 249–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Entwistle, N. J., & Tait, H. (1990). Approaches to learning, evaluations of teaching, and preferences for contrasting academic environments. Higher Education, 19(2), 169–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fyrenius, A., Bergdahl, B., & Silén, C. (2005). Lectures in problem-based learning—why, when and how? An example of interactive lecturing that stimulates meaningful learning. Medical Teacher, 27(1), 61–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gijbels, D. (2007, November 14–16). The road to hell: Attempts to enhance student learning approaches. Paper presented at the Second European Conference on Practice-based and Practitioner Research, Maastricht.

  • Gijbels, D., & Dochy, F. (2006). Students’ assessment preferences and approaches to learning: Can formative assessment make a difference? Educational Studies, 32(4), 399–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, C., & Debus, R. (2002). Developing deep learning approaches and personal teaching efficacy within a preservice teacher education context. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(4), 483–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kember, D. (2004). Interpreting student workload and the factors which shape students’ perceptions of their workload. Studies in Higher Education, 29(2), 165–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kember, D., Jamieson, Q. W., Pomfret, M., & Wong, E. T. T. (1995). Learning approaches, study time and academic performance. Higher Education, 29(3), 329–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, D., & Case, J. (2005). ‘Approaches to learning’ research in higher education: A response to Haggis. British Educational Research Journal, 31(2), 257–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 ed., pp. 39–58). Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mattick, K., Dennis, I., & Bligh, J. (2004). Approaches to learning and studying in medical students: Validation of a revised inventory and its relation to student characteristics and performance. Medical Education, 38, 535–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minbashian, A., Huon, G. F., & Bird, K. D. (2004). Approaches to studying and academic performance in short-essay exams. Higher Education, 47(2), 161–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nijhuis, J., Segers, M., & Gijselaers, W. (2005). Influence of redesigning a learning environment on student perceptions and learning strategies. Learning Environments Research, 8(1), 67–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nye, B., Konstantopoulos, S., & Hedges, L. V. (2004). How large are teacher effects? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(3), 237–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sambell, K., McDowell, L., & Brown, S. (1997). ‘But is it fair?’: An exploratory study of student perceptions of the consequential validity of assessment. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 23(4), 349–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scouller, K. (1998). The influence of assessment method on students’ learning approaches: Multiple choice question examination versus assignment essay. Higher Education, 35(4), 453–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Segers, M., Dochy, F., & Cascallar, E. (2003). The era of assessment engineering: Changing perspectives on teaching and learning and the role of new modes of assessment. In M. Segers, F. Dochy, & E. Cascallar (Eds.), Optimising new modes of assessment: In search of qualities and standards (pp. 1–12). The Neatherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Segers, M., Nijhuis, J., & Gijselaers, W. (2006). Redesigning a learning and assessment environment: The influence on students’ perceptions of assessment demands and their learning strategies. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 32(3), 223–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sivan, A., Wong Leung, R., Woon, C., & Kember, D. (2000). An implementation of active learning and its effects on the quality of student learning. Innovations in Education and Training International, 37(4), 381–389.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slater, T. F. (1996). Portfolio assessment strategies for grading first-year university physics students in the USA. Physics Education, 31(5), 329–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Struyven, K., Dochy, F., Janssens, S., & Gielen, S. (2006). On the dynamics of approaches to learning: The effects of the teaching/learning environment. Learning and Instruction, 16(4), 279–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Struyven, K., Dochy, F., Janssens, S., Schelfhout, W., & Gielen, S. (2008). The effects of hands-on experience on students’ preferences for assessment methods. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(1), 69–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweidel, G. B. (1996). Study strategy portfolio: A project to enhance study skills and time management. Teaching of Psychology, 23(4), 246–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tiwari, A., & Tang, C. (2003). From process to outcome: The effect of portfolio assessment on student learning. Nurse Education Today, 23, 269–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1991). Relating approaches to study and quality of learning outcomes at the course level. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 61(3), 265–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tynjälä, P. (2008). Perspectives into learning at the workplace. Educational Research Review. Retrieved July 7, 2008, from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/1747938X.

  • Van den Berg, D., & Vandenberghe, R. (1999). Succesvol leiding geven aan onderwijsinnovaties. Investeren in mensen (Succesful management of educational innovations. Investing in people). Alphen Aan Den Rijn: Samsom.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, S. P., Horn, S. P., & Sanders, W. L. (1997). Teacher and classroom context effects on student achievement: Implications for teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11(1), 57–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeegers, P. (2001). Approaches to learning in science: A longitudinal study. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(1), 115–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeichner, K., & Wray, S. (2001). The teaching portfolio in US teacher education programs: What we know and what we need to know. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 613–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeidner, M. (1987). Essay versus multiple-choice type classroom exams: The student’s perspective. Journal of Educational Research, 80(6), 352–358.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zoller, U., & Ben-Chaim, D. (1988). Interaction between examination type, anxiety state, and academic achievement in college science: An action-oriented research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(1), 65–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zoller, U., & Ben-Chaim, D. (1990). Gender differences in examination-type preferences, test anxiety, and academic achievements in college science education—a case study. Science & Education, 74(6), 597–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zoller, U., & Ben-Chaim, D. (1997). Examination-type preferences of college science students and their faculty in Israel and USA: A comparative study. School Science & Mathematics, 97(1), 3–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research study was supported by the Fund for Scientific Research Flanders (F.W.O. Vlaanderen).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Research on Teaching and Training, K.U. Leuven, Dekenstraat 2, Box 3772, 3000, Leuven, Belgium

    Marlies Baeten, Filip Dochy & Katrien Struyven

Authors
  1. Marlies Baeten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Filip Dochy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Katrien Struyven
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marlies Baeten.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Baeten, M., Dochy, F. & Struyven, K. Students’ approaches to learning and assessment preferences in a portfolio-based learning environment. Instr Sci 36, 359–374 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9060-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9060-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation