This study investigates the effects of two contrasting learning environments on students’ course experiences and compares a lecture based setting to a student-activating teaching environment. Data (N=608) were collected by the Course Experience Questionnaire (Ramsden, 1991). Results show that the instructional intervention influences students’ course experiences, in opposite directions of the assumptions though. In declining order, the following scales (5 out of 7) reveal statistically significant differences: Clear Goals and Standards; the General scale; Appropriate Workload; Good Teaching and the Independence scale. In addition, when the assessment mode is considered, also the Appropriate Assessment scale demonstrates significant results. Moreover, the same teaching/learning environments lead to diverse students’ perceptions. While the perceptions of lecture taught students were focused and concordantly positive, students’ course experiences with student-activating methods were widely varied and both extremely positive and negative opinions were present. Students’ arguments in favour of the activating setting are the variety of teaching methods, the challenging and active nature of the assignments and the joys of collaborative work in teams, whereas students express dissatisfaction to the perceived lack of learning gains, the associated time pressure and workloads, and the (exclusive) use of collaborative assignments and related group difficulties.

Theoretical framework

The principle that underpins this study is the statement of Entwistle (1991) that it is a student’s perceptions of the learning environment that influence how that student learns and not necessarily the context in itself. Regarding, Konings, Brand-Gruwel and van Merriënboer (2005) argue that students’ perceptions of a learning environment affect their subsequent learning behaviour and the quality of the learning outcomes. Consequently, it is no surprise that Fraser and Fisher (1983) find significant relations between students’ attitudes to the classroom environment and learning outcomes.

These relationships between students’ perceptions and learning have consequences for the design of learning environments. In this respect, Trigwell and Prosser (1991) argue that environments perceived to encourage deep approaches to learning will facilitate higher quality learning. Consequently, it was hypothesised that constructivist learning/teaching environments, which serve the purpose of deep and active learning (De Corte, 2000; Oxford, 1997; Sivan, Wong Leung, Woon & Kember, 2000; Vermunt, 1998; Von Glasersfeld, 1988), affect students’ perceptions and learning outcomes positively compared to traditional lecture-based settings. The Course Experience Questionnaire (Ramsden, 1991) was used to test this hypothesis.

Research design

The study concerns a course on Child Development which was delivered in two contrasting formats to 608 students (83% females, 18-20 years) in their first year of elementary teacher education.

On the one hand, a group of pre-service teachers was instructed within a lecture-based setting, characterized by formal lectures and followed by a multiple choice test (Lectures, N=114).

Students in the student-activating learning environment (Activating, N=494) on the other hand had to explore and discover the contents in the (same) course book by means of (solely) authentic assignments that required students to ‘actively’ browse and study the information in teams (learner/learner interaction) in order to solve the problems set in the tasks (e.g. problem-based tasks, case studies, educational games and teamwork).

Data collection was obtained by means of the Course Experience Questionnaire (Ramsden, 1991). At the end of the final lesson, students were asked to indicate their experiences with the course on Child Development on five scales; ‘Good Teaching’, ‘Clear Goals and Standards’, ‘Generic Skills’, ‘Appropriate Workload’ and ‘Independence’; and a ‘General scale’ that assessed students’ overall course satisfaction. A 5-point Likert-scale was used, ranging from ‘agree’=5 to ‘disagree’=1. The reliability of the CEQ is largely guaranteed (.683≤a≤.872).

An additional question assessed students’ perceptions of the instructional setting that they experienced during the course on Child Development on a five-point scale (‘very good’ to ‘very weak’). Blank space was provided for optional comments (see Table 3).

Results

Considering the nature of the activating assignments scores on the CEQ were expected to be higher for the student-activating learning environment compared to the lecture-based setting on following scales: Generic Skills, Independence, and consequently, the General scale.

The simple statistics in Table 1 reveal remarkable differences in students’ experiences of the same course when delivered by student-activating or lecture-based methods. Compared to the latter, the perceived quality of the course is generally lower in the student-activating environment. Conversely, standard deviations are higher, suggesting that students’ opinions are more divided. The analyses of variance (Table 1) show significant discrepancies between the two learning environments for 5 scales in the CEQ, accompanied by medium (d≥.50) and large effect sizes (d≥.80). In contrast with the premises, the Generic Skills scale does not differentiate between lectures and student-activating assignments.

In addition, students were asked to rate the experienced instructional setting, as demonstrated in Table 2. In accordance with the high standard deviations, the results show the student-activating group to be divided into supporters and opponents of these methods of teaching. Strikingly, more students in the activating group feel very satisfied (14.81%) as well as very dissatisfied (8.37%) with the experienced teaching methods, compared to their fellows in the lecture-taught group (respectively, 12.39% and 0.88%).

The additional comments associated with the assessment of the instructional methods in Table 3 reveal interesting arguments in both directions. The arguments in favour of the activated learning environment emphasise the variety of teaching methods that was adopted (38.19%), the challenging, active nature of the setting (15.97%) and the joys of team-based, collaborative work with fellow students (9.72%). Conversely, several students report a lack of learning gains (16.11%) due to the activating teaching methods. They report missing structured, informative lectures or classical feedback from the teacher (9.40%). The methods are perceived as unstructured (5.37%) and chaotic – because always different and new (9.40%), and (therefore) difficult (2.68%). Students suffer time pressures and intensive workload (10.07%). Other students in the contra-group feel that the student-activating setting lacks variety and is dull (14.09%), because exclusively collaborative methods are adopted (14.09%) which associate with group difficulties (4.70%).

Although the argument is used in opposed direction as well, the primary argument against lectures is the lack of variety of teaching methods (63.64%), along with the lack of learner/learner interaction (9.09%) and disturbing noises as a consequence of large group sizes (18.18%).

Discussion and conclusions

These students’ comments explain the contra-intuitive results as displayed by the Course Experience Questionnaire. Although these results are inconclusive about the causality of the relationships, negative feelings on the Appropriate Workload, Clear Goals and General scale tend to co-exist with a failure to acknowledge the development of Generic Skills and high(er) Independence rates that student-activating methods aim for. The inverse, positive relationship is valid as well. Consequently, results not only advocate that students’ perceptions need to be positive, in order for students to acknowledge the advantages of the learning/teaching environment. Moreover, when students’ perceptions are positive, the educational setting is contemplated with characteristics and advantages that it does not (explicitly) aim for.

Interestingly, the same educational setting is able to trigger contradictive students’ perceptions; that is, students’ course experiences with student-activating methods were ambiguous and widespread. Consequently, if students need to feel comfortable in the teaching setting in order to learn (Biller, 1996), the learning of the opposing students is jeopardised. In this respect, students’ arguments serve an interesting learning tool for educators to optimise current activating practices.