Portfolio-based learning environments did not change assessment preferences or deepen learning, and increased surface approaches in first-year students¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2008 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Using a pretest/posttest design, Baeten and colleagues found portfolio-based learning environments did not change students' assessment preferences and did not lead to deeper learning, while surface approaches increased significantly. → Remy M. J. P. Rikers 2008

Evidence¶

Remy M. J. P. Rikers 2008¶

Remy M. J. P. Rikers, Tamara van Gog, Fred Paas. (2008). The effects of constructivist learning environments: a commentary. Instr Sci (2008) 36:463–467. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9067-4

q3 · i? · review · r2

The commentary reports Baeten and colleagues' pretest/posttest study in a portfolio-based learning environment. It found no change in assessment preferences or depth of learning and "a significant increase in the use of surface approaches to learning". No effect size is printed.

"Using a pretest/posttest-design the authors demonstrate that portfolio-based learning environments do not change the student's assessment preferences and do not lead to a deeper level of learning. Surprisingly, the results showed a significant increase in the use of surface approaches to learning."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• In a constructivist portfolio-assessment course, deep approaches decreased, surface approaches increased, and preferences for student participation and permanent evaluation decreased significantly — related
• A constructivist course increased perceived deep-level assessment demands but students still reported more frequent use of surface approaches to learning — related
• In a constructivist learning environment, students' perceptions of assessment shifted toward deeper demands but their actual learning approaches did not, and surface approaches increased — related
• Students who perceive assessment demands as assessing deep, higher-level cognitive processing employ deep approaches, while those perceiving rote-recall demands employ surface approaches — reports the opposite
• Students who perceive teaching as good, and perceive clear goals, supportiveness and relevant courses, are more inclined towards a deep approach — reports the opposite
• Student-centred learning environments show mixed effects on students' approaches to learning, with several studies reporting increased surface or decreased deep approaches — a broader claim this one bears on