The clarity of students’ perceptions of their teaching/learning environment is regarded as an important quality indicator of good teaching. The Learning Experience Inventory in Courses (LEI-C) is a 12-item instrument that is designed to assess how clearly students perceive what it is they are required to learn, what they should be doing to learn it appropriately, and what the requirements and standards of assessment are; together yielding a Clarity of Perception Index (CPI). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were used to establish the factor structure and internal consistency of the subscales comprising the LEI-C and the overall CPI. The LEI-C was administered to 1840 students in class in 37 courses in a Hong Kong university, together with the Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F). A total of 1,002 valid responses were collected. Reliability and construct validity of the LEI-C were found to be satisfactory. The CPI was associated with high deep and low surface approaches to learning. These findings have important implications for quality assurance (QA) and especially quality enhancement (QE) of teaching. The LEI-C is a quickly administered instrument that can be used to assess the quality of ongoing teaching, and to pinpoint aspects of teaching that can be enhanced.
| Published in | Education Journal (Volume 3, Issue 6) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.edu.20140306.18 |
| Page(s) | 369-376 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2014. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Students’ Perceptions of Their Learning Experience, Students’ Approaches to Learning, Assessing Teaching Quality
| [1] | J. Biggs and C. Tang, Teaching for quality learning at university, Third Edition ed. Philadelphia: Open University Press, 2007. |
| [2] | J. Biggs and C. Tang, Teaching for quality learning at university, Second Edition ed. Philadelphia: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press, 2003. |
| [3] | J. Biggs and C. Tang, Teaching for quality learning at university, 4th ed. Maidenhead, UK: McGraw-Hill and Open University Press, 2011. |
| [4] | J. A. Tepper, "Measuring constructive alignment: an alignment metric to guide good practice," presented at the 1st UK Workshop on Constructive Alignment, Higher Education Academy Information and Computer Sciences (ICS) Subject Centre and Nottingham Trent University, 2006. |
| [5] | P. Ramsden, Learning to teach in higher education. London Routledge, 2003. |
| [6] | J. A. C. Hattie, Visible learning: A synthesis of 800+ meta-analyses on achievement. London: Routledge, 2009. |
| [7] | R. B. Barr and J. Tagg, "From teaching to learning - a new paradigm for undergraduate education," Change, vol. November/December, p. 13.25, 1995. |
| [8] | M. H. Davis, Z. Amin, J. P. Grande, A. E. O. Neill, W. Pawlina, and T. R. Viggiano, "Case studies in outcome-based education," Medical Teacher, vol. 29, pp. 717-722, 2007. |
| [9] | R. M. Harden, J. R. Crosby, and M. H. Davis, "AMEE guide No. 14: Outcome-based education: Part 1- An introduction to outcome-based education," Medical Teacher, vol. 21, p. 1, 1999. |
| [10] | A. Hill, "Continuous curriculum assessment and improvement: a case study," New Directions for Teaching and Learning, vol. 112, pp. 33-34, 2007. |
| [11] | P. Ramsden, "A performance indicator of teaching quality in higher education: The Course Experience Questionnaire," Studies in Higher Education, vol. 16, pp. 129-150, 1991. |
| [12] | N. Entwistle, Teaching for understanding at university. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009. |
| [13] | J. Biggs, D. Kember, and D. Y. P. Leung, "The Revised Two Factor Study Process Questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F," British Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 71, pp. 133-149, 2001. |
| [14] | J. Biggs, "The reflective institution: Assuring and enhancing the quality of teaching and learning," Higher Education, vol. 41, pp. 221-238, 2001. |
| [15] | R. Worthington and T. Whittaker, "Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices," The Counseling Psychologist, vol. 34, pp. 806-838, 2006. |
| [16] | J. Morizot, A. Ainsworth, and S. Reise, "Toward modern psychometrics: Application of item response theory models in personality research," in Handbook of research methods in personality psychology R. Robins, R. Fraley, and R. Krueger, Eds., ed New York, N.Y: Guilford Press, 2007, pp. 407-423. |
| [17] | L. Clark and D. Watson, "Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development," Psychological Assessment, vol. 7, pp. 309-319, 1995. |
| [18] | J. Kahn, "Factor analysis in counseling psychology research, training and practice: Principles, advances, and applications," The Counseling Psychologist, vol. 34, pp. 684-718, 2006. |
| [19] | S. Reise, N. Waller, and A. Comrey, "Factor analysis and scale revision," Psychological Assessment, vol. 12, pp. 287-297, 2000. |
| [20] | R. J. Pat-EI, H. Tillema, M. Segers, and P. Vedder, "Validation of Assessment for Learning Questionnaires for teachers and students," British Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 83, pp. 98-113, 2011. |
| [21] | D. J. Mundfrom, D. G. Shaw, and T. L. Ke, "Minimum sample size recommendations for conducting factor analyses," International Journal of Testing, vol. 5, pp. 159-168, 2005. |
| [22] | B. P. O'Connor, SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer's MAP test vol. 32, 2000. |
| [23] | J. T. E. Richardson, "Perceived academic quality and approaches to studying in higher education: Evidence from Danish students of occupational therapy," Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, vol. 54, pp. 189-203, 2010. |
| [24] | B. Thompson and L. G. Daniel, "Factor analytic evidence for the construct validity of scores: A historical overview and some guidelines," Educational and Psychological Measurement, vol. 56, pp. 197-208, 1996. |
| [25] | D. Kember, Action learning and action research: Improving the quality of teaching and learning. London: Kogan Page, 2000. |
| [26] | X. Wang, Y. Su, S. Cheung, E. Wong, and T. Kwong, "An exploration of Biggs' constructive alignment in course design and its impact on students' learning approaches," Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, vol. 51, pp. 812-821, 2012. |
| [27] | J. Hoddinott, "Biggs' constructive alignment: evaluation of a pedagogical model applied to a web course," in Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2000, World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications, ed. Montreal, 2000, pp. 1631-1632. |
| [28] | T. McMahon and H. Thakore, "Achieving constructive alignment: Putting outcomes first," The Quality of Higher Education, vol. 3, pp. 10-19, 2006. |
| [29] | A. P. Boyle, "Using alignment and reflection to improve student learning," Elements, vol. 3, pp. 113-117, 2007. |
| [30] | M. M. Morris, "Evaluating university teaching and learning in an outcome-based model: Replanting Bloom," PhD Ph.D. Thesis, University of Wollongong, 2008. |
| [31] | P. Raeburn, N. Muldoon, and C. Bookallil, "Blended spaces, work based learning and constructive alignment: Impacts on student engagement," Ascilite Auckland, pp. 820-831, 2009. |
| [32] | H. Larkin and B. Richardson, "Creating high challenge/high support academic environments through constructive alignment : student outcomes.," Teaching in higher education, vol. 18, pp. 192-204, 2013. |
APA Style
Eva Wong, Theresa Kwong, Dimple R. Thadani. (2014). The Effects of Students’ Perceptions of their Learning Experience on their Approaches to Learning: The Learning Experience Inventory in Courses (LEI-C). Education Journal, 3(6), 369-376. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.edu.20140306.18
ACS Style
Eva Wong; Theresa Kwong; Dimple R. Thadani. The Effects of Students’ Perceptions of their Learning Experience on their Approaches to Learning: The Learning Experience Inventory in Courses (LEI-C). Educ. J. 2014, 3(6), 369-376. doi: 10.11648/j.edu.20140306.18
AMA Style
Eva Wong, Theresa Kwong, Dimple R. Thadani. The Effects of Students’ Perceptions of their Learning Experience on their Approaches to Learning: The Learning Experience Inventory in Courses (LEI-C). Educ J. 2014;3(6):369-376. doi: 10.11648/j.edu.20140306.18
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.edu.20140306.18,
author = {Eva Wong and Theresa Kwong and Dimple R. Thadani},
title = {The Effects of Students’ Perceptions of their Learning Experience on their Approaches to Learning: The Learning Experience Inventory in Courses (LEI-C)},
journal = {Education Journal},
volume = {3},
number = {6},
pages = {369-376},
doi = {10.11648/j.edu.20140306.18},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.edu.20140306.18},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.edu.20140306.18},
abstract = {The clarity of students’ perceptions of their teaching/learning environment is regarded as an important quality indicator of good teaching. The Learning Experience Inventory in Courses (LEI-C) is a 12-item instrument that is designed to assess how clearly students perceive what it is they are required to learn, what they should be doing to learn it appropriately, and what the requirements and standards of assessment are; together yielding a Clarity of Perception Index (CPI). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were used to establish the factor structure and internal consistency of the subscales comprising the LEI-C and the overall CPI. The LEI-C was administered to 1840 students in class in 37 courses in a Hong Kong university, together with the Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F). A total of 1,002 valid responses were collected. Reliability and construct validity of the LEI-C were found to be satisfactory. The CPI was associated with high deep and low surface approaches to learning. These findings have important implications for quality assurance (QA) and especially quality enhancement (QE) of teaching. The LEI-C is a quickly administered instrument that can be used to assess the quality of ongoing teaching, and to pinpoint aspects of teaching that can be enhanced.},
year = {2014}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - The Effects of Students’ Perceptions of their Learning Experience on their Approaches to Learning: The Learning Experience Inventory in Courses (LEI-C) AU - Eva Wong AU - Theresa Kwong AU - Dimple R. Thadani Y1 - 2014/12/22 PY - 2014 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.edu.20140306.18 DO - 10.11648/j.edu.20140306.18 T2 - Education Journal JF - Education Journal JO - Education Journal SP - 369 EP - 376 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2327-2619 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.edu.20140306.18 AB - The clarity of students’ perceptions of their teaching/learning environment is regarded as an important quality indicator of good teaching. The Learning Experience Inventory in Courses (LEI-C) is a 12-item instrument that is designed to assess how clearly students perceive what it is they are required to learn, what they should be doing to learn it appropriately, and what the requirements and standards of assessment are; together yielding a Clarity of Perception Index (CPI). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were used to establish the factor structure and internal consistency of the subscales comprising the LEI-C and the overall CPI. The LEI-C was administered to 1840 students in class in 37 courses in a Hong Kong university, together with the Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F). A total of 1,002 valid responses were collected. Reliability and construct validity of the LEI-C were found to be satisfactory. The CPI was associated with high deep and low surface approaches to learning. These findings have important implications for quality assurance (QA) and especially quality enhancement (QE) of teaching. The LEI-C is a quickly administered instrument that can be used to assess the quality of ongoing teaching, and to pinpoint aspects of teaching that can be enhanced. VL - 3 IS - 6 ER -
Email: