|
| [ HERDSA ]
[ Proceedings Contents ] |
Besides these three main factors a further factor called "non-academic orientation" or "study pathologies" has been identified (Entwistle and Entwistle 1991) This reflects a general lack of motivation and is associated with disorganised study methods.
Approaches to student learning are therefore, by nature, multi-dimensional. They comprise aspects of both motive and strategy components and are only meaningful in context. They are related to student intentions and teaching/learning context on the one hand, and the quality of the learning outcome on the other.
Given an individual's goals, self-perceptions as to ability and exposure to a particular teaching learning environment, the student finds a certain approach to be viable and is personally comfortable in day-to-day coping with that environment. The student thus becomes pre-disposed to use deep or surface strategies for that particular task. The implication here is that students deliberately choose those approaches to learning that are most likely to bring about the sort of outcome that is desired.
The students who attend this course are mainly Black students who have emerged from an inferior education system which has left them educationally disadvantaged. 'In this education system most of the teachers are young. Their youth, relative inexperience and lack of training means that they usually resort to what is known as "survival teaching". This is a type of teaching in which no questions, discussion, problem solving, pupil participation and critical thinking are allowed' (Hofmeyer 1989). As a result students resort to the surface approach rote learning to survive.
The Pre-technician course is a six-month foundation course to prepare students for courses in Science and Engineering.
The course comprises:
Mathematics I (Credit subject)The subject Life Skills should have the greatest influence on the learning strategies of the student. This course covers among other things, topics on an orientation to tertiary studies, goal setting, developing adequate self knowledge, time management, study methods, critical thinking and the greater realisation of one's potential.
Physics
Chemistry or Technology
Technical English
Life Skills
The instrument measures the students' approach to 24 study variables which fall under the categories of Deep Approach, Surface Approach, Achieving Approach and non-academic variables.
| Learning variable | z statistic |
| Deep approach variables | |
| Deep Approach (DA) | -0.9 |
| Deep Books (DB) | -0.1 |
| Use of Evidence (UE) | -1.0 |
| Relating Ideas (RI) | 0.9 |
| Intrinsic Motivation (IM) | -1.8* |
| Comprehension Learning (CL) | -0.2 |
| Deep Assessment (AD) | 1.0 |
| Learning Space (deep)(LD) | 1.1 |
| Deep relations (RD) | -0.2 |
| Reflection (RE) | 0.8 |
| Achieving approach variables | |
| Strategic Approach (ST) | 0.9 |
| Extrinsic Motivation (EM) | 0.9 |
| Achievement Motivation (AM) | -1.8* |
| Surface approach variables | |
| Syllabus Boundness (SB) | 0.3 |
| Fragmentation (FA) | -0.9 |
| Memorisation (MA) | -1.2 |
| Globetrotting (GL) | -0.6 |
| Improvidence (IP) | 0.4 |
| Surface Learning Space (LS) | -0.9 |
| Surface Content (CS) | 1.9* |
| Surface Relations (RS) | 1.7* |
| Non-academic variables | |
| Fear of Failure (FF) | 1.1 |
| Disorganised study (DS) | 3.7** |
| Work Load (WL) | 0.1 |
| * p < 0.05 ** p < 0.001 | |
In the deep approach there was a general decrease in this approach but the only significant decrease was that of Intrinsic Motivation (IM). This perhaps indicates an increasing dislike or disinterest in the subject. Which is perhaps not surprising as Physics is generally recognised as a difficult subject. This possibly also accounts for the decrease in Achievement Motivation (AM) and the move towards Surface Content (CS) and Surface Relationships (RS) where there is an uncritical acceptance of the words of the lecturer or the textbook. This leads to an overall disintegration of the study strategies of the students (DS) in which there is difficulty in getting down to work, managing time and concentrating on the task at hand.
The overall result was disappointing as it was hoped that the Life Skills course would have had a marked influence on the way the students learnt, but this was not evident.
| Group 1: | Top Achievers, those who succeeded in achieving a mark of 60% or more in the final examination i.e. x > 60% (65 students) |
| Group 2: | Those who passed but achieved less than 60%, i.e. 60% < x < 50% (64 students) |
| Group 3: | Those who failed i.e. achieved less than 50%, i.e. x < 50% (48 students) |
The changes in the learning variables of Group 1 and Group 3 are shown in the following table.
| Learning variable | z statistic | |
| Group 1 | Group 3 | |
| Deep approach variables | ||
| Deep Approach (DA) | 0.5 | -1.1 |
| Deep Books (DB) | 0.1 | -2.5** |
| Use of Evidence (UE) | -1.5 | -0.7 |
| Relating Ideas (RI) | 1 | -0.2 |
| Intrinsic Motivation (IM) | -1 | -1.5 |
| Comprehension Learning (CL) | -0.7 | -0.3 |
| Deep Assessment (AD) | 2.0* | -0.4 |
| Learning Space (deep)(LD) | 0.5 | 0.6 |
| Deep relations (RD) | -0.2 | 0.1 |
| Reflection (RE) | 1.6 | -0.9 |
| Achieving approach variables | ||
| Strategic Approach (ST) | 0.9 | 0.4 |
| Extrinsic Motivation (EM) | 0.4 | -0.2 |
| Achievement Motivation (AM) | 0.1 | -1.5 |
| Surface approach variables | ||
| Syllabus Boundness (SB) | -1.4 | 1.4 |
| Fragmentation (FA) | -2.4** | 1.3 |
| Memorisation (MA) | -1.1 | -0.2 |
| Globetrotting (GL) | -1.7* | 1.1 |
| Improvidence (IP) | -0.7 | 1.2 |
| Surface Learning Space (LS) | 0.4 | -1.9* |
| Surface Content (CS) | 2.4** | -0.3 |
| Surface Relations (RS) | -0.1 | 1.2 |
| Non-academic variables | ||
| Fear of Failure (FF) | -1.3 | 2.5** |
| Disorganised study (DS) | 0.7 | 3.9** |
| Work load (WL) | -2.0* | 1 |
| * p < 0.05 ** p < 0.001 | ||
In the Deep approach variables Group 1 has in general adopted a deeper approach but with only deep assessment (DA) indicating a significant change. This change indicates that they had a better idea of what was expected in the examinations. Group 3, on the other hand, in general adopted a less deep approach with deep books (DB) being highly significant. This indicates that the students were relying almost solely on their course notes and textbook.
In the surface approach variables Group 1 in general relied less on a surface approach than they had at school, except for the highly significant increase in surface content (CS). Group 3, however, adopted a greater reliance on the surface approach with the exception being surface learning space (LS) where the students become less aware of their learning environment.
The achieving approach variables do not show any particular trends.
The non-academic variables show an interesting trend with a decrease in fear of failure(FF) and the accompanied decrease in the perceived workload (WL) in Group 1. On the other hand, Group 3 were really falling to pieces with highly significant fear of failure (FF) and associated disorganised study strategies (DS)
A similar pattern was observed by Prosser and Miller (1989) where of the first year students taking a physics course, only students who had used a deep approach to learning developed the more sophisticated, technical conceptions required by the lecturers. Students relying on surface approaches were left with inadequate conceptions which could create increasing problems for them as they progressed through the course.
"While individual differences between students in their approaches to learning and studying may remain relatively stable over time and course, the balance between deep and surface for the whole class can be altered by, for example, the assessment procedure" (Thomas 1986)."Students who are consistently relying on a surface approach actively prefer, and rate more highly lecturers who provide pre-digested information ready for 'learning', while students who prefer a deep approach prefer lecturers who challenge and stimulate" (Entwistle and Tait 1990).
"Thus, it is students' perception of the learning environment that influence how a student learns, not necessarily the context in itself" (Entwistle 1987).
"The whole teaching - learning system affects the quality of student learning. Changing one component - like study skills advice - can have little effect, if teaching and assessment remains unchanged" (Entwistle 1991).
'Students can be taught learning strategies that will improve learning efficiency no matter what style the teacher uses' (Davis et al 1994).
"The way in which knowledge is structured and presented influences the approaches to learning" (Sheppard and Gilbert 1991).
"Insights into the nature of learning can be fostered by a programme including peer discussion and learning contracts and can show a marked increase in deep approaches to learning" (Dart and Clarke 1991).
Dart, B.C. and Clarke, J.A. (1991). Helping students become better learners: A case study in teacher education. Higher Education, 22: 317-335.
Davis, E.C., Nur, H. and Ruru, S.A.A. (1994). Helping Teachers and Students understand Learning styles. English Teaching Forum, 32 (3): 12-15.
Entwistle, N.J. and Tait, H. (1990). Approaches to learning, evaluations of teaching, and preferences for contrasting academic environments. Higher Education, 19: 169-194.
Entwistle,N.J. and Entwistle,A. (1991) Contrasting forms of understanding for degree examinations: the student experience and its implications. Higher Education, 22: 205-228.
Entwistle, N.J. and Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding Student Learning. Croom-Helm, London.
Entwistle, N.J. (1987). A model of the teaching-learning process. In Richardson, J.T.E., Eysenck, M.W. and Warren Piper, D. (Eds). Student Learning: Research in Education and Cognitive Psychology. London: S.R.H.E/ Open University Press, pp.13-28.
Entwistle, N.J. (1991). Approaches to learning and perceptions of the learning environment. Higher Education, 22: 201-204.
Hofmeyer, J.M. (1989). Equalising Educational Opportunities. South African Journal of Labour Relations, 13(2): 21-43.
Meyer, J.H.F. (1991). Study Orchestration: The manifestation, interpretation and consequences of contextualised approaches to studying. Higher Education, 22, 297-315.
Pask, G. (1976). Styles and strategies of learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 128-148.
Prosser, M. and Millar, R. (1989). The 'how' and 'why' of learning physics. European Journal of the Psychology of Education, 4, 513-528.
Säljö, R. (1979). Learning in the learner's perspective, I - Some commonsense conceptions. Reports from the Institute of Education, University of Gothenburg, Sweden, 77, 1979.
Sheppard, C. and Gilbert, J. (1991). Course design, teaching method and student epistemology. Higher Education, 22: 229-250.
Thomas, J.W., Bol, L. and Warkentin, R.W. (1991). Antecedents of college students' study deficiencies: The relationship between course features and students' study activities. Higher Education, 22: 275-296.
Thomas, P. (1986). The structures and stability of learning approaches. Unpublished PhD Thesis. University of Queensland. Australia. Quoted in Entwistle (1991).
| Deep assessment (ad): | A general awareness of testing procedures reflected in an awareness of the purpose of tests, what they measure, different types of testing, and the educational benefit of receiving feedback from testing. |
| Achievement motivation (am): | A positive form of motivation characterised by a desire to excel in personal terms, as well as in competition with others. |
| Deep books (bd): | An awareness of the attributes of books (such as their 'search apparatus' layout and composition) that facilitates their skilled utilisation. |
| Comprehension learning (cl): | Divergent thinking, originally derived in the context of problem solving. Sometimes also referred to as 'holism' as well; generally a way of approaching things from a variety of perspectives - 'mapping out' a subject as part of the comprehension of new ideas rather than a single narrow one as in operation learning. |
| Surface content (cs): | An awareness of some attributes of subject content in terms of structure and quantity. |
| Deep approach (da): | An intention to understand what is being learned that involves critical engagement and expenditure of effort. |
| Disorganised studying (ds): | An acknowledgement that difficulty is being experienced in getting down to work, managing time and concentrating on task at hand. |
| Extrinsic motivation (em): | A basically extrinsic interest in the subject; the need for studying it is seen in vocational terms, such as a means towards obtaining a qualification and good employment. |
| Fragmentation (fa): | Conceptually this may be regarded as one component of what is often described as a "surface approach" to studying (the other component being memorising). On its own, it strictly represents the lack of an organising principle in processing new information to be learned; such information is perceived to consist, in the absence of any apparent structure, of unconnected 'bits and pieces'. |
| Fear of failure (ff): | A negative motivational influence attributed to a general concern about failing, but linked to exam tension, a lack of confidence and work pressure. |
| Globetrotting (gl): | An extreme manifestation of comprehension learning; one grasps the global features of something but does not actually see the picture. |
| Intrinsic motivation (im): | A positive motivational influence reflected in expressed interest, and even excitement, concerning the subject being studied, coupled with the desire to learn more about it. |
| Improvidence (ip): | A pathological over-reliance on detail and procedure in problem solving, associated with an inability to integrate detail into an overall picture. |
| Learning space (deep) (ld): | An awareness of the relational aspects of one's learning environment; where one sits, how things like chalk boards, equipment is used. |
| Surface learning space (ls): | An awareness of some aspects of the learning environment that facilitate or impede the efficient transfer of information such as noise, legibility and the use of media. |
| Memorisation (ma): | A process of realising the intention to memorise information by way of repeated rehearsal. |
| Operation learning (ol): | Convergent thinking; doing things (problem solving) one step at a time, logically, using standard procedures etc. The opposite of comprehension learning. |
| Deep relations (rd): | An appreciation of the value of human interaction in learning, and how this can be affected by one's own attitudes. |
| Reflection (re): | A deep level process of reflecting on past learning experiences and reassessing their personal meaning. |
| Relating ideas (ri): | An active (deep-level) process of attempting to relate new ideas to other contexts and experiences; also "mapping" them out to see how they fit together. |
| Surface relationships (rs): | An uncritical acceptance of the words of the lecturer, or of the textbook, and a predisposition to anticipate exam questions by guesswork. |
| Syllabus boundness (sb): | A preference for what needs to be done to be made clearly explicit, with little attempt being made to explore beyond given requirements by way of additional reading. |
| Strategic approach (st): | A conscious attempt to marry effort expended to the "reward system" of the course by being sensitive to cues concerning what is, or might be expected to be, required in terms of assessment procedures. |
| Use of evidence (ue): | Checking that conclusions and argument are supported by evidence. |
| Workload (wl): | A perception that there is a heavy workload to get through; usually related to fear of failure and a host of other undesirable perceptions and actions. |
| Please cite as: Sharwood, D. W. (1996). How can students be encouraged to follow successful study strategies? Different Approaches: Theory and Practice in Higher Education. Proceedings HERDSA Conference 1996. Perth, Western Australia, 8-12 July. http://www.herdsa.org.au/confs/1996/sharwood.html |