Reconceptualising Learning Approach Adoption through Assessment Perceptions: Evidence from Ghanaian Colleges of Education

Background. Fewer research examines how assessment perceptions shape learning approaches in teacher education, particularly the perceptual alignment between lecturers and pre-service teachers in developing contexts. This study tested the Assessment Perception Scale (APS) dimensions as predictors of deep learning approaches across Ghana's Colleges of Education.
Aims. Three aims: (1) examine lecturer-trainee perceptual divergence across five APS dimensions; (2) test APS predictive power for deep learning approaches; (3) explore group interactions.
Sample. Nationally representative N = 3,874 (354 lecturers, 3,520 pre-service teachers) across 24 public Ghanaian Colleges of Education; 92.3% response rate.
Methods. Multistage sampling followed Krejcie & Morgan (1970). One-way MANOVA tested group differences; hierarchical multiple regression (demographics, APS, and interactions) predicted deep learning. APS α = .92-.96.
Results. Table 2 reveals significant perceptual divergence across all APS dimensions, Pillai's Trace = .988, F(5, 3,514) = 57,428.64, and p < .001; task authenticity showed the largest effect (ηp² = .145). Table 3 demonstrated that APS explained 62% of the variance (R² = .62) vs. demographics 8% (R² = .08); transparency was strongest (β = .42). Group against Task Authenticity interaction was significant (ΔR² = .02, p = .032).
Conclusions. APS dimensions powerfully predict deep learning, substantially outperforming demographics. Trainees' task authenticity perceptions drive deep approaches more than lecturers. National coverage across 46 institutions mandated CoE reform prioritizing transparency/authenticity training, informing GTEC policy on Colleges of Education in Ghana.

Reconceptualising , Adoption , Assessment

1. Baartman, L., Bastiaens, T., Kirschner, P. A., & Van der Vleuten, C. (2007). Evaluating assessment quality in competence-based education: A qualitative comparison of two frameworks. 114–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2007.06.001 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Biggs, J., Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. P. (2001). The revised two-factor Study Process Questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 133–149. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709901158433 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 × 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(3), 501–519. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.3.501 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Entwistle, N. (2009). Teaching for Understanding at University: Deep Approaches and Distinctive Ways of Thinking (Universities Into the 21st Century). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Gijbels, D., Alders, G., Van Hoof, E., Charlier, C., Roelants, M., Broekmans, T., Op ’T Eijnde, B., & Feys, P. (2010). Predicting habitual walking performance in multiple sclerosis: relevance of capacity and self-report measures. Multiple Sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England), 16(5), 618–626. https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458510361357 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining Sample Size for Research Activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30(3), 607–610. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447003000308 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Lizzio, A., Wilson, K., & Simons, R. (2002). University students’ perceptions of the learning environment and academic outcomes: Implications for theory and practice. Studies in Higher Education, 27(1), 27–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070120099359 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Nordin, N. A., Abd Halim, N. D., & Dahri, N. A. (2026). An empirically validated pedagogical framework to reduce cognitive load in online learning environments. Iran Journal of Computer Science, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/S42044-025-00382-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Paas, F., van Gog, T., & Sweller, J. (2010). Cognitive load theory: New conceptualizations, specifications, and integrated research perspectives. Educational Psychology Review, 22(2), 115–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10648-010-9133-8 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Priyamvada, S. (2018). Exploring the Constructivist Approach in Education: Theory, Practice, and Implications. 5, 717–725. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to Teach in Higher Education (2nd Edition). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Romdhon, J., Masrifah, M., Shiyama, N. M., & Suharyati, H. (2024). Applying Constructivist Learning Theory to Enhance Student Learning Outcomes in Elementary Schools. International Journal of Sustainable Development & Future Society, 2(2), 62–69. https://doi.org/10.62157/IJSDFS.V2I2.73 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. T-TEL. (2015). Mid-Inception Report. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Relationship of Technology Acceptance and Behavioural Intention Toward AI-Based Educational Assessment among Lecturers in Saudi Arabia
• Development and Validation of an Extended UTAUT-Based Instrument for Measuring Lecturers' Acceptance and Behavioral Intention Toward AI-Based Educational Assessment in Saudi Higher Education