Student-centred teaching methods: Can they optimise students' approaches to learning in professional higher education?

Studies in Educational Evaluation

Volumn 39, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 14-22

  Baeten, Marlies ^a   Struyven, Katrien ^b   Dochy, Filip ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^b VRIJE UNIVERSITEIT BRUSSEL   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Approaches to learning; Teaching methods

Indexed keywords

EID: 84873081380     PISSN: 0191491X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2012.11.001     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Albanese M., Mitchell S. Problem-based learning: A review of the literature on its outcome and implementation issues. Academic Medicine 1993, 68:52-81.
2. Baeten M., Dochy F., Struyven K. Enhancing students' approaches to learning: The added value of gradually implementing case-based learning. European Journal of Psychology of Education 2012, Advance online publication.
3. Baeten M., Kyndt E., Struyven K., Dochy F. Using student-centred learning environments to stimulate deep approaches to learning: Factors encouraging or discouraging their effectiveness. Educational Research Review 2010, 5:243-260.
4. Beijaard D., Verloop N., Vermunt J. Teachers' perceptions of professional identity: An exploratory study from a personal knowledge perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education 2000, 16(7):749-764.
5. Biggs J. Enhancing learning: A matter of style or approach. Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles 2001, 73-102. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. R. Sternberg, L. Zhang (Eds.).
6. Biggs J., Kember D., Leung D.Y.P. The revised two-factor study process questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology 2001, 71(1):133-149.
7. Biggs J.B. Study process questionnaire manual 1987, Australian Council for Educational Research, Melbourne.
8. Cohen L., Manion L., Morrison K. Research methods in education 2007, Routledge, London. 6th ed.
9. Deci E., Koestner R., Ryan R. A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin 1999, 125(6):627-668.
10. Elen J., Clarebout G., Léonard R., Lowyck J. Student-centred and teacher-centred learning environments: What students think. Teaching in Higher Education 2007, 12(1):105-117.
11. Entwistle N., McCune V. The conceptual bases of study strategy inventories. Educational Psychology Review 2004, 16(4):315-345.
12. Entwistle, N., McCune, V., & Hounsell, D. (2002). Occasional report 1: Approaches to studying and perceptions of university teaching-learning environments: Concepts, measures and preliminary findings. ETL Project, Universities of Edinburgh, Coventry and Durham. Available from http://www.ed.ac.uk/etl.
13. Entwistle N., Tait H. Approaches to learning, evaluations of teaching, and preferences for contrasting academic environments. Higher Education 1990, 19(2):169-194.
14. Entwistle N.J., Ramsden P. Understanding student learning 1983, Croom Helm, London.
15. Field A. Discovering statistics using SPSS 2009, SAGE Publications, London.
16. Gielen S., Dochy F., Dierick S. Evaluating the consequential validity of new modes of assessment: The influence of assessment on learning, including pre-, post-, and true assessment effects. Optimising new modes of assessment: In search of qualities and standards 2003, 37-54. Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands. M. Segers, F. Dochy, E. Cascallar (Eds.).
17. Gijbels D., Segers M., Struyf E. Constructivist learning environments and the (im)possibility to change students' perceptions of assessment demands and approaches to learning. Instructional Science 2008, 36(5-6):431-443.
18. Hannafin M., Hill J., Land S. Student-centered learning and interactive multimedia: Status, issues, and implications. Contemporary Education 1997, 68(2):94-99.
19. Hu L., Bentler P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling 1999, 6:1-55.
20. Kirschner P., Sweller J., Clark R. 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 2006, 41(2):75-86.
21. Könings K., Brand-Gruwel S., van Merriënboer J. Towards more powerful learning environments through combining the perspectives of designers, teachers, and students. British Journal of Educational Psychology 2005, 75(4):645-660.
22. Lea S., Stephenson D., Troy J. Higher education students' attitudes to student-centred learning: Beyond 'educational bulimia'?. Studies in Higher Education 2003, 28(3):321-334.
23. Loyens S., Rikers R. Instruction based on inquiry. Handbook of research on learning and instruction 2011, 361-381. Routledge, New York. R. Mayer, P. Alexander (Eds.).
24. Loyens S., Rikers R., Schmidt H. The impact of students' conceptions of constructivist assumptions on academic achievement and drop-out. Studies in Higher Education 2007, 32(5):581-602.
25. Marton F. On non-verbatim learning. II. The erosion of a task induced learning algorithm. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 1976, 17:41-48.
26. Marton F., Säljö R. Approaches to learning. The experience of learning. Implications for teaching and studying in higher education 1997, 39-58. Scottish Academic Press, Edinburgh. 2nd ed. F. Marton, D. Hounsell, N. Entwistle (Eds.).
27. Mayer R. Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist 2004, 59(1):14-19.
28. Motschnig-Pitrik R., Holzinger A. Student-centered teaching meets new media: Concept and case study. Educational Technology and Society 2002, 5(4):160-172.
29. Renkl A. Why constructivists should not talk about constructivist learning environments: A commentary on Loyens and Gijbels (2008). Instructional Science 2008, 37:495-498.
30. Säljö R. Qualitative differences in learning as a function of the learner's conception of a task 1975, Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis, Gothenburg.
31. Schelfhout W., Dochy F., Janssens S., Struyven K., Gielen S. Towards an equilibrium model for creating powerful learning environments. Validation of a questionnaire on creating powerful learning environments during teacher training internships. European Journal of Teacher Education 2006, 29(4):471-503.
32. Scouller K. The influence of assessment method on students' learning approaches: Multiple choice question examination versus assignment essay. Higher Education 1998, 35:453-472.
33. 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. European Journal of Psychology of Education 2008, 23:295-317.
34. Struyven K., Dochy F., Janssens S. 'Teach as you preach': The effects of student-centred versus lecture-based teaching on student teachers' approaches to teaching. European Journal of Teacher Education 2010, 33(1):43-64.
35. Struyven K., Dochy F., Janssens S., Gielen S. On the dynamics of students' approaches to learning: The effects of the teaching/learning environment. Learning and Instruction 2006, 16:279-294.
36. Trigwell K., Prosser M., Waterhouse F. Relations between teachers' approaches to teaching and students' approaches to learning. Higher Education 1999, 37:57-70.
37. Tynjälä P. Towards expert knowledge? A comparison between a constructivist and a traditional learning environment in the university. International Journal of Educational Research 1999, 31:357-442.
38. Vanthournout G., Donche V., Gijbels D., Van Petegem P. Alternative data-analysis techniques in research on student learning: Illustrations of a person-oriented and developmental perspectives. Reflecting Education 2009, 5(2):35-51.
39. Wilson K., Fowler J. Assessing the impact of learning environments on students' approaches to learning: Comparing conventional and action learning designs. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 2005, 30(1):87-101.