Student‐oriented versus Teacher‐centred: The effect of learning at workstations about birds and bird flight on cognitive achievement and motivation

Abstract

The study investigated cognitive and motivational effects of two educational interventions, a conventional versus a student‐oriented approach. We monitored the impact on the cognitive achievement outcome and the motivation of students. Both approaches dealt with the subject of birds and bird flight; the student‐oriented approach consisted of a unit based on workstations, and the conventional one was taught in a more teacher‐centred manner. A total of 326 secondary school pupils of the highest stratification level participated in this study. By using a pre‐test, post‐test and retention‐test design, both approaches were evaluated with the same empirical batteries (by applying a cognitive item set and the “Intrinsic Motivation Inventory”). The conventional approach provided higher achievement scores whereas the student‐oriented approach showed a higher motivational rating. Comparing the student‐oriented approach with and without introduction, the group with introduction attained higher achievement scores. The results are discussed in terms of general expectations about the cognitive outcome in open learning environments and self‐determination theory. Educational implications are drawn concerning the implementation of learning at workstations in school curricula.

Acknowledgements

The authors appreciate the cooperation of all participating teachers and students. They are very thankful to F.‐J. Scharfenberg and M. Wiseman for valuable discussions and reading the text. The study was supported by the University of Bayreuth.

Notes

1. In this study, the term “student‐oriented” is used synonymously for “student‐centred” (Cuban, 1983) and “learner‐centred” (Schuh, 2004).

2. The H‐test of Kruskal–Wallis is used for the comparison of more than two independent samples. For non‐normally distributed data, it substitutes analysis of variance and analysis of covariance (Zöfel, 2002, p. 114). The Kruskal–Wallis test was applied to test first whether any differences exist in the pre‐test results. For further pair‐wise analyses, the U‐test of Mann–Whitney for non‐normally distributed data was used (Zöfel, 2002, p. 103).

3. The chi‐square value is reported in addition when computing the Kruskal–Wallis test with SPSS 14.0.

4. Before conducting pair‐wise analyses with the Mann–Whitney U‐test, the H‐test of Kruskal–Wallis was applied to test whether any differences at all exist between the three groups.