Encouraging Deep Learning by Using Appropriate Assessment Strategies

The present study compared non-traditional teaching and learning methods (involving project-based learning) with traditional methods, and examined their effect on students’ approaches to learning. The study also investigated whether particular teaching, learning and assessment (TLA) methodologies contributed to deeper approaches to learning. Seventy psychology students participated in the study, 50 of whom completed preand post-Study Process Questionnaires (SPQ) (Biggs, 1987b) to measure for shifts in deep learning in a traditional and non-traditional course. Seventy participants completed a SPQ in the non-traditional course and rated the effectiveness of six teaching and learning components (field work task, field work supervision, learning group contract, learning group experience, lectures, and peer teaching sessions) and three assessment components (applied essay, peer teaching session, and short answer examination) of the course. Results indicated that non-traditional methods, compared to traditional methods, resulted in an increase in deep motives, deep strategies and deeprelated approaches to learning. In addition, results indicated a trend for surface learners, compared to deep learners, to move toward deep approaches to learning and a significant increase by surface learners in deep strategies for learning. Contrary to hypotheses, however, results indicated that none of the individual TLA methodologies examined in the non-traditional course were, on their own, predictive of deep motives, strategies or approaches to learning. This finding was interpreted as indicating that students perceived all TLA methodologies to be equally effective in facilitating deep learning. Implications for theory and practice of effective teaching in higher education are discussed. Interest in the area of teaching and learning effectiveness has grown substantially over recent years. In particular, many researchers have examined the way in which students approach their learning (e.g., Biggs, 1989, 2003; Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983; Thomas & Bain, 1984) and the situational and environmental influences that can influence those approaches (e.g., Biggs & Rihn, 1984; Dart & Clarke, 1991; Newble & Clarke, 1986). The three constructs of deep, surface and achieving, each comprising a motive for learning and an associated strategy, are the most widely accepted terms used to describe approaches to learning (Biggs, 1987a; Kember & Gow, 1989; Ramsden & Entwistle, 1981). A number of researchers proposed that a deep approach to learning is preferable because it results in meaningfulness in learning material (e.g., Biggs & Rihn, 1984; Gow & Kember, 1990; Sobral, 1995), depth of processing (Collier, 1985), is more compatible in meeting the aims of higher education (Baird, 1988; Collier, 1985; Percy & Salter, 1976), provides personal satisfaction with performance (Biggs, 1982), and results in higher academic achievement (Thomas & Bain, 1982; Watkins & Hattie, 1980). These studies show the desirability of students adopting a deep approach to learning and provide reason for attempting to influence a student’s approach if it does not incorporate a deep learning strategy. Although there has been considerable debate as to whether approaches to learning are stable styles of learning (Thomas & Bain, 1982) or strategies adopted for specific learning tasks (Marton & Saljo, 1976; Thomas & Bain, 1984), there is growing evidence for both a degree of consistency and an element of flexibility in approaches to learning (Entwistle, Hanley & Hounsell, 1979; Kember & Gow, 1989). The teaching and learning environment has been investigated as a key factor in influencing approaches to learning (Biggs, 1989, 2003; Newble & Clarke; 1986; Ramsden, 1992). Several writers have reported practices that encourage surface approaches including teaching style and teacher/student relationships (Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983), lack of freedom or independence in learning (Ramsden & Entwistle, 1981), heavy workload ETL Conference, 2003, Queensland College of Art, Griffith University: Jane Fowler (Dahlgren, 1984; Watkins & Hattie, 1980), and assessment processes (Ramsden, 1979). Other studies have indicated that deep approaches can be influenced by modifying the learning environments (e.g. Biggs & Rihn, 1984; Dart & Clarke, 1991). For example, Dart and Clarke (1991) aimed to improve the depth of learning of tertiary students by modifying their learning environments. They found that by introducing a variety of non-traditional experiences (such as negotiation of the curriculum, peer discussion and teaching, learning contracts, and self, peer and collaborative assessment) students increased their deep motives and strategies, deep approaches and deep-achieving approaches to learning (although the increases were not significant). There are several limitations to Dart and Clarke’s study, however, that bear consideration in interpretation of the findings, viz. students “selected” to join the program after details had been outlined, students were made aware of “approaches to learning”, and they did not include a control group. Biggs and Rihn (1984) attempted to assist undergraduates become more efficient learners by changing their approach to learning via the introduction of particular skills such as time management, goal setting, self-management, concentration and memory, and problem solving. They found that deep motives increased and surface motives decreased (but neither significantly) and deep and achieving strategies and deep approaches increased significantly. However, a 20% attrition between preand post-testing and a pilot study that showed deficiencies in strategies involved in deep learning may have influenced these results. It is also important to note that although shifts toward deep learning occurred in these studies, the relative contribution of individual teaching, learning and assessment (TLA) methodologies have not been measured. The first purpose of the present study was to compare non-traditional teaching and learning methods, involving project-based learning, with traditional teaching and learning methods and their effect on students' approaches to learning. The second purpose of this study was to investigate the contribution of particular TLA methodologies, in project-based learning, that enhance deeper approaches to learning.