Exploring the relationship between experienced students' preference for open- and closed-book examinations, approaches to learning and achievement

Abstract

The relationship between university students' approaches to learning and preference for the open- and closed-book examinations was investigated for 144 Greek undergraduate (56 third- and 88 fourth-year) students attending a Philosophy, Education and Psychology Department. The approaches were explored by the Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students (ASSIST). Examination preferences for open- or closed-book exams were assessed by 3 self-report questions. Students who preferred the open-book examination scored lower on “Time management”, “Achieving”, and “Unrelated memorising”. The study provides links between the students' study orchestrations/profiles, assessment preference, and achievement. The deep profile students (mainly 3rd-year students) seem to prefer the open-book exam but appear unorganised in their study in a similar extent to surface-profile students. They also reported low achievement. The study cautiously suggests the influence of the year of study on students' assessment preference. The results are discussed in relation to recent literature.

Keywords:

• ASSIST subscales
• approaches to learning
• preference
• open- and closed-book examination
• achievement

Notes

Such ideas are usually reported in the student's guide of the particular department and comprise some of the superordinate departmental goals concerning the development of deep conceptual understanding of any specific topic in order for better learning to occur.

In Greece, the gender ratio in social science schools is overwhelmingly in favour of women (Papakonstandinou, 2003; Sianou-Kyrgiou, 2006). The number of males and females in our sample does not allow the exploration of approaches to learning with regard to gender. Relevant research has indicated significant relationships between gender and approaches to learning (Burnett & Proctor, 2002; Duff, Boyle, Dunleavy, & Ferguson, 2004), but the research findings are not consistent (Richardson & King, 1991; Wilson, Smart, & Watson, 1996).