Traditional studying for examination versus constructivist learning tasks: Do learning outcomes differ?

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Students' learning outcomes on an educational psychology course which involved studying three textbooks were compared between a constructivist class without a final examination and a traditional class concluding with an examination. The constructivist group (n = 16) studied the coursebooks with the help of writing assignments, discussed their assignments in groups and wrote an essay. The control group (n = 23) read the books on their own, attended lectures and took an examination. Learning outcomes were investigated (1) as the students' subjective learning experiences; (2) as changes in the students' learning conceptions; and (3) as measured by a traditional examination in which the students had to answer two questions. Although the constructivist group students did not have to take the examination as a basis of their course grade, they were asked to answer the questions in order to provide research material. All students in both groups described their learning in terms of knowledge acquisition. The constructivist group students emphasised the development of their thinking more than did the students in the control group. They also developed more constructivist conceptions of learning. Examination answers were longer in the control group, but the answers of the constructivist group students included more classifications, comparisons, evaluations and generalisations and their SOLO (Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome) level was higher than in the control group. It is concluded that a constructivist learning environment seems to produce higher-level learning outcomes more efficiently than traditional teaching.