Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Students’ likes and dislikes regarding student-activating and lecture-based educational settings: Consequences for students’ perceptions of the learning environment, student learning and performance

  • Published:
European Journal of Psychology of Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper aims to investigate students’ likes and dislikes of the teaching that they have experienced and its effects on students’ perceptions of the learning environment, student learning and academic performance. The study compares a lecture-based setting to a student-activating learning/teaching environment, considering both instructional and assessment practices. Data (N=578) were collected using the Course Experience Questionnaire (Ramsden, 1991) and by means of a standardised test. While lecture-taught students’ evaluations of the experienced teaching were generally focused and positive, students’ perceptions of the activating methods varied widely and both extremely positive and negative opinions were present. Also the consequences of these (dis)likes in instruction for student learning become clear. Moreover, a significant positive linear effect of students’ (dis)likes in instruction on students’ perceptions of the learning environment (except for appropriate assessment), their learning and their performance was found. This way, the results pinpoint the central role of teaching methods for students’ learning and caution against detrimental consequences of students’ negative appraisal of the teaching methods that they experience. A matching strategy between a student’s teaching tastes and the teacher’s instructional interventions provides the best educational prospects.

Résumé

Cet article a pour but de dégager les appréciations positives ou négatives des étudiants vis-à-vis de l’enseignement qu’ils ont vécu et d’examiner leurs effets sur les perceptions qu’ils ont de l’environnement d’apprentissage, de leurs démarches d’apprentissage et de leur performance académique. L’étude compare un environnement d’apprentissage constitué de cours transmissifs traditionnels avec un environnement qui se réfère à des méthodes actives, tant pour l’enseignement que pour les pratiques d’évaluation. Les données (N=578) ont été recueillies à l’aide du ‘Course Experience Questionnaire’ (Ramsden, 1991) et d’un autre test standardisé. Alors que les évaluations des étudiants qui ont suivi les cours traditionnels étaient assez positives et ciblées, les étudiants engagés dans des enseignements utilisant des méthodes actives avaient des perceptions très diverses: les uns avaient des opinions très positives, d’autres très négatives. De la sorte, les conséquences des attitudes d’appréciation/aversion envers les méthodes actives deviennent claires. De plus, on a constaté un effet linéaire positif et significatif de la valeur (positive ou négative) que les étudiants accordaient aux méthodes d’enseignement sur leurs perceptions de l’environnement éducatif (à exception des pratiques appropriées d’évaluation), sur leurs démarches d’apprentissage et sur leurs performances. Finalement, les résultats indiquent le rôle central des méthodes d’enseignement pour l’apprentissage; ils incitent à rester prudents quant aux conséquences démobilisatrices des appréciations négatives que portent les étudiants sur les méthodes d’enseignement qu’ils vivent. La combinaison des méthodes d’enseignement avec les préférences des étudiants concernant chaque méthode d’enseignement fournit un meilleur résultat.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anaya, G. (1996). College experiences and student learning: The influence of active learning, college environments and co-curricular activities.Journal of College Student Development, 37(6), 611–622.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, P.H., & Lawton, L. (1991). Case study versus a business simulation exercise: Student perceptions of acquired skills.Simulation/Games for Learning, 21(3), 250–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ballard, S., Stapleton, J., & Carroll, E. (2004). Students’ perceptions of course web sites used in face-to-face instruction.Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 15(3), 197–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belcheir, M.J. (1998).Age and gender differences in instructional preferences. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Association for Institutional Research (Bozeman, Montana, October 7–9, 1998).

  • Ben-Ari, R., & Eliassy, L. (2003). The differential effects of the learning environment on student achievement motivation: A comparison between frontal and complex instruction strategies.Social behavior and Personality, 31(2), 143–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biller, J. (1996).Reduction of mathematics anxiety. Paper presented at the Annual National Conference on Liberal Arts and Education of Artists (10th, New York, NY, October 16–18, 1996).

  • Birenbaum, M. (1996). Assessment 2000: Towards a pluralistic approach to assessment. In M. Birenbaum & F. Dochy (Eds.),Alternatives in assessment of achievements, learning processes and prior knowledge. Evaluation in education and human services (pp. 3–29). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, P., & William, D. (1998). Inside the black box: raising standards in classroom assessment.Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boekaerts, M. (1995). Self-regulated learning: Bridging the gap between metacognitive and metamotivation theories.Educational Psychologist, 30(4), 195–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burron, B., James, M.L., & Ambrosio, A.L. (1993). The effects of cooperative learning in a physical science course for elementary middle level preservice teachers.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(7), 697–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Case, J., & Gunstone, R. (2003). Going deeper than deep and surface approaches: A study of students’ perceptions of time.Teaching in Higher Education, 8(1), 55–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chisholm, M.A., Dehoney, J., & Poirier, S. (1996). Development and evaluation of a computer-assisted instructional program in an advanced pharmacotherapeutics course.American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 60(4), 365–369.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chung, J., & Chow, S. (2004). Promoting student learning through a student-centred problem-based learning subject curriculum.Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 41(2), 157–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Concannon, F., Flynn, A., & Campbell, M. (2005). What campus-based students think about the quality and benefits of e-learning.British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(3), 501–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Das, M., ElSabban, F., & Bener, A. (1996). Student and faculty perceptions of the characteristics of an ideal teacher in a classroom setting.Medical Teacher, 18(2), 141–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, A., & LeMahieu, P. (2003). Reconsidering portfolios and research evidence. In M. Segers, F. Dochy, & E. Cascallar (Eds.),Optimising new modes of assessment: In search of qualities and standards (pp. 141–170). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Chapter  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 

  • Del Corral, M.J.C., Guevara, J.C., Luquin, P.A., Pena, H.J., & Otero, J.J.M. (2006). Usefullness of an internet-based thematic learning network: Comparison of effectiveness with traditional teaching.Medical informatics and the Internet in Medicine, 31(1), 59–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeLoughry, T.J. (1988). Remote instruction using computers found as effective as classroom sessions.Chronicle of Higher Education, 34(32), A15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delucchi, M. (2000). Don’t worry, be happy: Instructor likability, student perceptions of learning and teacher ratings in upper-level sociology courses.Teaching Sociology, 28(3), 220–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dochy, F., Gijbels, D., & Segers, M. (2006). Learning and the emerging new assessment culture. In L. Verschaffel, F. Dochy, M. Boeckaerts, & S. Vosniadou (Eds.),Instructional psychology: Past, present and future trends. Advances in Learning and Instruction Series of EARLI. Amsterdam (NL): Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dochy, F., Segers, M., Van den Bossche, P., & Gijbels, D. (2003). Effects of problem-based learning: A meta-analysis.Learning and Instruction, 13(5), 533–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drew, S. (2001). Student perceptions of what helps them learn and develop in higher education.Teaching in Higher Education, 6(3), 309–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • El Ansari, W. (2002). Student nurse satisfaction levels with their courses: Part 2 — effects of academic variables.Nurse Education Today, 22(2), 171–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elen, J., & Lowyck, J. (2000). Instructional metacognitive knowledge: A qualitative study on conceptions of freshman about instruction.Journal of curriculum studies, 32(3), 421–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Entwistle, N. (1997). Reconstituting approaches to learning: A response to Webb.Higher Education, 33(2), 213–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Espeland, V., & Indrehus, O. (2003). Evaluation of students’ satisfaction with nursing education in Norway.Journal of Advanced Nursing, 42(3), 226–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, A.T., Alder, J.G., & Avasalu, M.W. (1998). Lecturing performance appraisal criteria: Staff and student differences.Australian Journal of Education, 42(2), 153–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, B.J., & Fisher, D.L. (1983). Student achievement as a function of person-environment fit: A regression surface analysis.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 53(1), 89–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, P., & Friedman, K.A. (1980). Accounting for individual differences when comparing the effectiveness of remedial language teaching methods.Applied Psycholinguistics, 1(2), 151–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gielen, S., Dochy, F., & Dierick, S. (2003). Evaluating the consequential validity of new modes of assessment: The influence of assessment of 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). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, T.E., & Mark, B.L. (1995). Teaching in the information age: active learning techniques to empower’students.Reference Librarian, 51–52, 105–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jain, C., & Getis, A. (2003). The effectiveness of internet-based instruction: An experiment in physical geography.Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 27(2), 153–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janssens, S., Boes, W., & Wante, D. (2001). Portfolio: een instrument voor toetsing en begeleiding/Portfolio: An instrument for evaluation and coaching. In F. Dochy, L. Heylen, & H. Van de Mosselaer (Eds.),Assessment in onderwijs/Assessment in Education (pp. 203–224). Utrecht: LEMMA.

    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 

  • Kim, S.L., & Sonnenwald, D.H. (2002). Investigating the relationship between learning style preferences and teaching collaboration skills and technology: An exploratory study.Proceedings of the ASIST Annual Meeting, 39, 64–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R.E. (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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Konings, K.D., Brand-Gruwel, S., & van Merriënboer, J.J.G. (2005). Towards more powerful learning environments through combining the perspectives of designers, teachers, and students.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(4), 645–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liow, S.R., Betts, M., & Kok Leong Lit, J. (1993). Course design in higher education: A study of teaching methods and educational objectives.Studies in Higher Education, 18(1), 65–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction.American Psychologist, 59, 14–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyers, C., & Jones, T.B. (1993).Promoting active learning. Strategies for the college classroom. Jossey-Bass Incorporation: California, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michel, S. (2001). What do they really think? Assessing student and faculty perspectives of a web-based tutorial to library research.College and Research Libraries, 62(4), 317–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohamed, N. (2004). Consciousness-raising tasks: A learner perspective.ELT Journal, 58(3), 228–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, R. (2004). Decreasing cognitive load in novice students: Effects of explanatoryversus corrective feedback in discovery-based multimedia.Instructional Science, 32, 99–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Novak, S., Shah, S., Candidate, D., Wilson, J.P., Lawson, K.A., & Salzman, R.D. (2006). Pharmacy students’ learning styles before and after a problem-based learning experience.American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education,70(4), Art. No. 74.

  • O’Leary, S., Diepenhorst, L., Churley-Strom, R., & Magrane, D. (2005). Educational games in an obstetrics and gynecology core curriculum.American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 193(5), 1848–1851.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oxford, R.L. (1997). Constructivism: Shape-shifting, substance and teacher education applications.Peabody Journal of Education, 72(1), 35–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phipps, M., Phipps, C., Kask, S., & Higgins, S. (2001). University students’ perceptions of cooperative learning: Implications for administrators and instructors.Journal of Experiential Education, 24(1), 14–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P.R. (1999). The role of motivation in promoting and sustaining self-regulated learning.International Journal of Educational research, 31, 459–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramsden, P. (1991). A performance indicator of teaching quality in higher education: the course experience questionnaire.Studies in Higher Education, 16(2), 129–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, D., & Birge, B. (1995). Teaching physiology by combined passive (pedagogical) and active (andragogical) methods.Advances in Physiology Education, 13(1), S66-S74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salamonson, Y., & Lantz, J. (2005). Factors influencing nursing students’ preference for a hybrid format delivery in a pathophysiology course.Nurse Education Today, 25(1), 9–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Segers, M. (2003). Evaluating the overall test: looking for multiple validity measures. In M. Segers, F. Dochy, & E. Cascallar (Eds.),Optimising new modes of assessment: in search of qualities and standards (pp. 119–140). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Segers, M., Dochy, F., & Cascallar, E. (Eds.). (2003).Optimising new modes of assessment: in search of qualities and standards. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sibbald, D. (2004). A student assessment of the virtual interactive case tool for asynchronous learning (VITAL) and other self-directed learning formats.American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 68(1), Art. No. 11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silberman, M. (1996).Active learning: 101 strategies to teach any subject. Prentice-Hall: Massachusetts, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siu, H.M., Laschinger, H.K.S., & Vingilis, E. (2005). The effect of problem-based learning on nursing students’ perceptions of empowerment.Journal of nursing education, 44(10), 459–469.

    Google Scholar 

  • Struyven, K., Dochy, F., & Janssens, S. (2005). Students’ perceptions about evaluation and assessment in higher education: A review.Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(4), 325–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Struyven, K., Dochy, F., Janssens, S., & Gielen, S. (2008). Students’ experiences with contrasting teaching/learning environments: The added value of students’ perceptions.Learning Environments Research: An International Journal, 11(2).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Struyven, K., Dochy, F., Janssens, S., Schelfhout, W., & Gielen, S. (2006). The effects of the method of assessment on student performance: A comparison between multiple choice testing, peer assessment, case based assessment and portfolio assessment.Studies in Educational Evaluation, 32(3), 202–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Struyven, K., Sierens, E., Dochy, F., & Janssens, S. (2003).Groot worden. De ontwikkeling van baby tot adolescent (Handboek voor toekomstige leerkrachten).Growing. The development from baby to adolescent (Course book prospective teachers). Leuven: LannooCampus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tang, T.L.P. (1997). Teaching evaluation at a public institution of higher education: Factors related to the overall teaching effectiveness.Public Personnel Management, 26(3), 379–389.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tenenbaum, G., Naidu, S., Jegede, O., & Austin, J. (2001). Constructivist pedagogy in conventional on campus and distance learning practice: An exploratory investigation.Learning and instruction, 11(2), 87–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Terwel, J. (1999). Constructivism and its implications for curriculum theory and practice.Journal of curriculum studies, 31(2), 195–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tobias, S. (1994). Interest, prior knowledge, and learning.Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 37–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Topping, K. (2003). Self and peer assessment in school and university: Reliability, validity and utility. In M. Segers, F. Dochy, & E. Cascallar (Eds.),Optimising new modes of assessment: In search of qualities and standards (pp. 55–88). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1991). Improving the quality of student learning: The influence of learning context and student approaches to learning on learning outcomes.Higher Education, 22(3), 251–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Waterhouse, F. (1999). Relations between teachers’ approaches to teaching and students’ approaches to learning.Higher Education, 37(1), 57–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tynjälä, P. (1997). Developing education students’ conceptions of the learning process in different learning environments.Learning and Instruction, 7(3), 277–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vermetten, Y., Vermunt, J.D., & Lodewijks, H.G. (2002). Powerful learning environments? How university students differ in their response to instructional measures.Learning and Instruction, 12(3), 263–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vermunt, J., & Vermetten, Y. (2004). Patterns in student learning: relationships between learning strategies, conceptions of learning and learning orientations.Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 359–384.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vermunt, J.D. (1998). The regulation of constructive learning processes.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68(2), 149–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vermunt, J.D., & Verloop, N. (1999). Congruence and friction between learning and teaching.Learning and Instruction, 9(3), 257–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Glasersfeld, E. (1988). Constructivism as a scientific method.Scientific Reasoning Research Institute Newsletter, 3(2), 8–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, C. (1996). Merging technology and constructivism in teacher education.Teacher Education and Practice, 12(1), 62–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wierstra, R.F.A., Kanselaar, G., Van der Linden, J.L., Lodewijks, H.G.L.C., & Vermunt, J.D. (2003). The impact of the university context on European students’ learning approaches and learning environment preferences.Higher Education, 45(4), 503–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, K.L., Lizzio, A., & Ramsden, P. (1997). The development, validation and application of the Course Experience Questionnaire.Studies in Higher Education, 22(1), 33–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woo, M.A., & Kimmick, J.V. (2000). Comparison of internetversus lecture instructional methods for teaching nursing research.Journal of Professional Nursing, 16(3), 132–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yuen, K.-M., & Hau, K.-T. (2006). Constructivist teaching and teacher-centred teaching: A comparison of students’ learning in a university course.Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 43(3), 279–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

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

    Katrien Struyven & Steven Janssens

  2. Centre for Research on Teaching and Training, Centre for Educational Research on Lifelong Learning and Participation, University of Leuven (KULeuven), Dekenstraat 2, Postbus 3772, 3000, Leuven, Belgium

    Filip Dochy

Authors
  1. Katrien Struyven
    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. Steven Janssens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katrien Struyven.

Additional information

This research was supported by a scholarship from the University’s Research Coordination Office and Research Council of the KULeuven.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Struyven, K., Dochy, F. & Janssens, S. Students’ likes and dislikes regarding student-activating and lecture-based educational settings: Consequences for students’ perceptions of the learning environment, student learning and performance. Eur J Psychol Educ 23, 295–317 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173001

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173001

Key words

Search

Navigation