Date created: | Last Updated:

Category: Project

Description: Data from survey of 56 students in one second-year undergraduate course from each of two bachelor’s programmes. Designed to predict from students’ perceptions of four dimensions of constructive alignment the adaptation of students’ learning approaches towards a deep approach. Also assessed changes in students’ learning motivation and perceived learning demands as a function of learning approach adaptation. Students were from various majors (e.g. General Economics and Management, Integrated Social Sciences, International Business Administration, Logistics, Psychology). Students completed questionnaires in the second (T1), seventh (T2), and the final fourteenth (T3) class. Participation was fully anonymous. Participants’ data were matched across waves by means of an alphanumeric code that we instructed participants to generate from family members’ names and birth dates. Measures Except for the mental workload questionnaire, all items were rated on Five-Point Likert scales. At T1, we assessed students’ use of surface and deep approaches to learning with 20 items from the Revised Two-Factor Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F; Biggs et al., 2001). There were five items for each of the four subscales of Deep Motive (sample item: “I find that at times studying gives me a feeling of deep personal satisfaction.”), Deep Strategy (sample item: “I test myself on important topics until I understand them completely.”), Surface Motive (sample item: “My aim is to pass a course while doing as little work as possible.”), and Surface Strategy (sample item: “I learn some things by rote, going over and over them until I know them by heart even if I do not understand them.”). As demographic data, we collected participants’ major, age, and gender. As an assessment of their motivation, students completed 16 items from the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI; Deci & Ryan, 2006), with four items for each of the subscales of Enjoyment (sample item: “I think this class is very interesting.”), Competence Self-Perception (sample item: “I am pretty skilled at doing the tasks for this class.”), Usefulness (sample item: “I believe doing the activities in this class are beneficial to me.”), and Importance (sample item: “It is important to me to do well at the tasks in this class.”). Students filled in the R-SPQ-2F and the IMI at T2 and T3 as well. At T2 and T3, students rated the constructive alignment of the course with the Constructive Alignment Questionnaire (CALEQ; Fitzallen et al., 2017) that comprised five items for each of the four dimensions of ILO Clarity (sample item: “I had a clear idea of what I was supposed to learn.”), Alignment of Teaching-Learning Activities (TLA Alignment; sample item: “I was provided a variety of activities that helped me learn what I was supposed to learn.”), Alignment of Assessment Tasks (AT Alignment; sample item: “The assessment tasks addressed what I was supposed to learn.”), and Feedback Effectiveness (sample item: “I received feedback that was clear and specific to what I was supposed to learn.”). Also, students indicated on the NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX; Hart & Staveland, 1988) the mental workload they perceived from learning in that particular class. To each of the dimensions of Mental Demand (“Has this course been easy or demanding, simple or complex?”), Temporal Demand (“Has the learning been slow and leisurely or rapid and frantic?”), Frustration Level (“How insecure, stressed or annoyed versus secure, relaxed or content have you felt during the learning?”), Performance Satisfaction (“How satisfied have you been with your performance in accomplishing the goals of the learning activities?”), and Required Effort (“How hard did you have to work to accomplish your level of performance?”), students assigned a value between 0 and 100 percent.