The Relationship between learning approaches and academic achievement in humanities and engineering students considering the role of gender

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 PhD candidate in educational psychology in Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran,

2 Associate Professor in educational psychology in Shiraz University

Abstract

The purpose of the current study was to explore the relationship between learning approaches and academic achievement in humanities and engineering students considering the role of gender.The method of this study was descriptive-correlational. The statistical population concluded all Shiraz University Students from which 100 students (50 students of humanities and 50 students of engineering) were selected using convenient sampling and responded to the revised two-factor Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F) (Biggs, Kember, & Leung). Correlation, regression, and t-tests analysis methods were used to analyze the data. The results show that there is a significant positive correlation between the deep learning approach and academic achievement and a significant negative correlation between the surface learning approach and academic achievement. Moreover, the results of regression analysis show that the surface learning approach variable significantly negatively explains the academic achievement. Also, the results of t-test analysis show a significant difference between boys and girls in surface learning approach, and between humanities and engineering students in deep approach to learning. Generally, studying learning approaches and determining the strengths and weaknesses of student learning provide useful information for those involved, educational planners and teachers to create better conditions for students to study and learn satisfactorily.

Keywords

References

امینیان، امیر حسین؛ قمی زاده،  اقدس (1387). «مقایسة دانشجویان موفق، ناموفق از نظر شیوه­های مطالعة در دانشگاه علومشهید صدوقی یزد». مجلة مرکز مطالعات و توسعة آموزش پزشکی، 2(2)، صص 8-14.
باغانی، مریم؛ دهقانی نیشابوری، محسن(1390). «بررسیتأثیرانگیزشتحصیلی،خودکارآمدیو رویکردهای مطالعة برپیشرفتتحصیلیدانش آموزان». مجموعه مقالات اوّلین  همایش  ملی  علوم شناختی در تعلیم  و تربیت. دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد.
پارسا، عبدالله؛ ساکتی، پرویز (1386). «رویکردهای یادگیری، نتایج یادگیری و ادراکات دانشجویان از برنامة درسی اجرا شده و دورة تحصیلی». مجلة علوم اجتماعی و انسانی دانشگاه شیراز، 26 (3)، صص 1-23.
روحانی، آرمیتا؛ اکبری، مجید و مماوی، طیبه (1389). «بررسی مهارتهای مطالعه­ دانشجویان دندانپزشکی مشهد در سال تحصیلی88-87 ». مجلة طبّ و تزکّیه، 19 (4)، صص 63-74.
سیف، علی اکبر؛ فتح آبادی، جلیل (1387). «رویکردهای مطالعه و رابطة­ آن با پیشرفت تحصیلی ، جنسیت و مدت تحصیلدانشجویان در دانشگاه». دو ماهنامة علمی – پژوهشی دانشور رفتار، 15 (33)، صص 29-40.
سیف، علی اکبر (1395). روان شناسی پرورشی نوین: روان شناسی یادگیری و آموزش. ویرایش هفتم. تهران: نشر دوران.
شکری، امید؛ کدیور، پروین؛ فرزاد، ولی­الله؛ دانشورپور، زهره (1385). «رابطۀ سبک­های تفکر و رویکردهایی یادگیری با پیشرفت تحصیلی دانشجویان». تازه­های علوم شناختی، 8 (2). صص 44-52.
شکورنیا، عبدالحسین؛ غفوریان بروجردنیا، مهری؛ الهام پور، حسین(1391). «مقایسة­ رویکردهای مطالعه و یادگیری دانشجویان  مقطع پایه و بالینی رشتة­ پزشکی و ارتباط آن با پیشرفت تحصیلی». گام­های توسعه در آموزش پزشکی، 9(2)، صص89 – 94.  
علی­بخشی، زهرا؛ زارع، حسین(1389). «اثربخشی آموزش خودتنظیمی یادگیری و مهارت­های مطالعه بر پیشرفت تحصیلی دانشجویان». فصلنامة­ روانشناسی کاربردی، 4 (3)، صص 69-80.
فتح­­آبادی، جلیل؛ سیف، علی اکبر(1386). «بررسی تأثیر روش­های مختلف سنجش (تشریحی یا چندگزینه­ای) بر رویکردهای مطالعه و راهبردهای آماده شدن برای امتحان در دانشجویان با پیشرفت تحصیلی بالا و پایین». مجلة علوم تربیتی و روان شناسی دانشگاه شهید چمران اهواز، 14 (4)، صص 21-46.
فاتحی پیکانی، زهرا؛  شکری، امید (1393). «نقش میانجیگر هیجانات پیشرفت در رابطه باورهای خودکارآمدی تحصیلی و رویکردهای یادگیری». دو فصلنامة راهبردهای شناختی در یادگیری، 2 (3)، 89-109.
کرمی، ابوالفضل؛ دلاور، علی؛ بهرامی، هادی و کریمی، یوسف (1384). «تدوین ابزار سنجش راهبردهای یادگیری و مطالعه و تعیین رابطة آن با پیشرفت تحصیلی». مجلة روان­شناسی، 9(4)، صص 399- 412.
لواسانی، مسعود غلامعلی؛ خضری، آذر؛ امانی، جواد (1390). »تفاوت­های جنسیتی در خودکارآمدی، اهداف پیشرفت، ارزش تکلیف،درگیری شناختی و پیشرفت ریاضی». مطالعات اجتماعی – روان­شناختی زنان، 9 (1)، صص 7 – 32.
نعمتی، آبس (1386). «رابطة حافظة فعّال، رویکردهای مطالعهو عملکرد تحصیلی در دانش­آموزان پسر سال سوم مقطع متوسطه». پایان نامه کارشناسی ارشد. تهران. دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی. دانشکده روان­شناسی و علوم تربیتی.
Artino, A. R. & Jones, K. D. (2012). Exploring the complex relations between achievement emotions and self-regulated learning behaviors in online learning. Internet and Higher Education, 15, 170-175.
Bernardo,  I. B. A. (2004). Approaches to learning and academic achievement of Filipino students.The Journal of Genetic Psychology,161(1),101 – 114.
Biggs, J. B. (2001). Enhancing learning: A matter of style or approach? In R. J. Sternberg & L. F. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives onthinking, learning, and cognitive styles (73–102). Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.
Biggs, J., Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. P. (2001). The revised two-factor study process questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. British journal of Educational Psychology 71: 133-49.
Buric, I. & Soric, I. (2012). The role of test hope and hopelessness in self-regulated learning: Relations between volitional strategies, cognitive appraisals and academic achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 22, 523-529.
Bustamante, A. S., White, L. J., & Greenfield, D. B. (2016). Approaches to learning and school readiness in Head Start: Applications to preschool science. Learning and Individual Differences, 1–7.
Case, J., & Marshall, D. (2004). Between deep and surface: procedural approaches to learning in engineering aducation contexts. Studies in Higher Education, 29:5, 605-615.
Cheng, R. & Lam, S. (2013). The interaction between social goals and self-construal on achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38 (2), 136-14.
Coertjens, L., Vanthournout, G., Lindblom-Ylanne, S., & Postareff, L. (2016). Understanding individual differences in approaches to learning across courses: A mixed method approach. Learning and Individual Differences, 51, 69–80.
Christou , N., & Dinov, I. D. (2010). A study of students’ learning styles, discipline attitudes and knowledge_acquisition in technology-enhanced probability and statistics education. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6 (3), 546-572.
Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestore, K. (2004). Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16learning: Asystematic and critical review. London: Learning and Skills Research Centre.
Delotell, P.J., Millam, L.A., & Reinhardt, M.M. (2010). The Use of deep learning strategies in online business courses to impact student retention. American Journal of Business Education, 3 (12), 49-56.
Demirkan , H., & Demirbas, O. (2010). The effects of learning styles and gender on the academic performance of interior architecture students. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(1),1390–1394.
Diseth A., & Martinsen, O.(2003). Approaches to Learning, Cognitive style, and Motives as predictors of Academic Achievement. Educational Psychology,23(2): 196-20.
Diseth, A. (2005).personality and approaches to learning as predictors of academic achievement.  European Journal of personality,11,143-155 .
Diseth, A. (2007).Approaches to learning, course experience and examination grade among  undergraduate psychology students: testing of mediator effects and construct validity. Studiesin Higher Education, 32(3): 373-88.
Diseth, A., & Kobbeltvedt, T. (2010). A mediation analysis of achievement motives, goals,learning strategies and academic achievement.British Journal of Educational psychology. 80.
Dobson, J.L. (2010). A comparison between learning style preference and sex, status, and course performance. Advances Physiology Education, 34(4):197-204.
Duff, A. (2004). The revised approaches to studying inventory (RASI) and its use in management  education. Active Learning in Higher Education,5(1): 56-72.
Dupeyrat, C., & Marine, C. (2005). Implicit theories of intelligence, goal orientation, cognitive engagement, and achievement: A test of Dwecks model with returning to school adults. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 43-59.
Entwistle, J., & Tait, H. (1990). Approaches to learning, evaluations of teaching, and preferences for contrasting academic environments. Higher Education, 19, 169–194.
Entwistle, N. (2000). Promoting deep learning through teaching and assessment: conceptual frameworks and educational context. Paper presented at the TLRP Conference, Leicester, November.
Entwistle, N., Tait, H., & McCune, V.(2000). Patterns of response to an approaches to studying  inventory across contrasting groups and contexts. European Journal of Psychology of  Education, 1, 33-48.
Fenollar, P., Roman, S., & Cuestas, P. J. (2007). University students academic performance: An integrative conceptual framework and empirical analysis. British Journal of Educationl Psychology, 77, 873-891.
Floyd, K. S., Harrington, S. J., & Santiago, J. (2009). The effect of engagement and perceived course value on deep and surface learning strategies. Informing Science: the International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, 12, 181-190.
Galla, B. M.; Wood, J. J.; Tsukayama, E.; Har, K.; Chiu, A. W. & Langer, D. A. (2014). A longitudinal multilevel model analysis of the within-person and between-person effect of effortful engagement and academic self-efficacy on academic performance. Journal of School Psychology, 52, 295-308.
Gibbs, G. (1992). Improving the Quality of Student Learning. (Bristol, Technical & Educational  Services).
Hu, B. Y., Teo, T., Nie, Y., Wu, Z. (2017). Classroom quality and Chinese preschool Children's approaches to learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 54, 51–59.
Kazu, I. Y. (2009) .The effect of learning styles on education and the teaching process. Journal ofSocial Science, 2, 85-94.
Kereber, C. (2003). The relationship between students, course perception and their approaches to studying in undergraduate science courses: A Canadian experience. Higher Education  Research and Development, 22,1, 57-75.
Kolb,D., & Fry, R. (1975). Towards an applied theory of experiential learning. In C. Cooper (Ed.), Theories of group processes. London: Wiley.
Laurillard, D. M. (1979). The process of student learning. HigherEducation, 8, 395-409.
Leung, S., F., Mok, E., & Wong, D. (2008). The impact of assessment methods on the learning of nursing students. Nurse Educ Today, 28(6),711-9.
Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning: I Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46(1), 4–11.
McGeown, S. P., Putwain, D., Simpson, E. G., Boffey, E., Markham, J. & Vince, A. (2014). Predictors of adolescents' academic motivation: Personality, self-efficacy and adolescents' characteristics. Learning and Individual Differences, 32, 278-286.
Meyer, J. H. F., Dunne, T. T. & Richardson, J. T. E. (1994). A gender comparison of contextualized  study behaviour in higher education. Higher Education, 27, 469–485.
Minbashian, A.,  Huon, G. F., & Bird, K. D. (2004). Approaches to studying and academic  performance in short-essay exams.Higher Education ,47, 161-176.
Muray-Harvey, R. (1994). Learning Styles and Approaches to Learning Distinguishing Between  Concepts and Instruments. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 64, 373-388.
Niepel, C., Brunner, M. & Preckel, F. (2014). Achievement goals, academic self-concept, and school grades in mathematics: Longitudinal reciprocal relations in above average ability secondary school students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39 (4), 301-313.
Pekrun, R., Cusack, A., Murayama, K., Elliot, A. J. & Thomas, K. (2014). The power of anticipated feedback: Effects on students' achievement goals and achievement emotions. Learning and Instruction, 29, 115-124.
Phan, H. P. (2008). Unifying different theories of learning: Theoretical framework and empirical evidence. Educational Psychology, 28, 325-340.
Phan, H. P. (2009). Exploring Students Reflective thinking Practice Deep Processing Strategies, Effort, And Achievement Goal Orientations. Educational Psychology, 29(3), 297-313.
Phan, H. P. (2011). Deep Processing Strategies and Critical Thinking: Developmental Trajectories Using Latent Growth Analyses. The Journal of Educational Research, 104(4), 283-294.
Ramsden, P. (1988). Studying learning: improving teaching, in: P. Ramsden (Ed.) Improving learning: new perspectives (London, Kogan Page).
Richardson, J. T. E. & King, E. (1998). Adult students in higher education: burden orboon?. Journal of Higher Education, 69, 65–88.
Sadler–smith, E. (1997). "Learning style": Frame Works and instruments. Educational  psychology, 17 (1&2):51-63.
Senemoglu, N.(2011) College of education students approaches to learning and study skills. Education and science, 36(160): 65-80.
Septh, G., & Brown, R. (1990). Effects of college students’ learning styles and gender on their test preparation strategies. Applied Cognitive Psychology,4, 189-202.
Simons, J., Dewitte, S., & Lens, W. (2004). The role of different types of instrumentality in motivation, study strategies, and performance: Know why you learn, so you’ll know what you learn. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 343-360.
Stroud, K., C. (2006). Development of the school motivation and strategies inventory.URL:http//www.Education.Umd.Edu/EDHD/faculty2/Alexander/ARL/intl/Buehl 2003.pdf   (5/4/2007).
Struyven, K., Dochy, F., Janssens, S., & Gielen, S. (2006). On the dynamics of students' approaches to learning: The effects of the teaching/learning environment. Learning and Instruction,16 (4), 279-94.
Sun, H., & Richardson, J.T.E. (2011). Perceptions of quality and approaches to studying in higher education: a comparative study of Chinese and British postgraduate students at six  British business schools. High Educ, 63,299–316.
Swanberg, A. B., & Martinsen , Q. L. (2009). Personality, approaches to learning and  Achievement. Educational Psychology, 30 (1), 75–88.
Swee, P., & Choo Gho. (2005). Perceptions of learning environment, learning approaches, and learning outcomes: a study of private higher education students in malaysia from twinning programs. The thesis of doctor of education of the university of Adelaide.
Tanwir, U. H., Aditya, K. S., & Banshi, D. (2010). An investigation of relationship between learning styles and performance of learners. InternationalJournal of Engineering Science and Technology, 2(7), 2813-2819.
Ullah, R., Richardson, J. T. E., & Hafeez, M. (2011). Approaches to studying and perceptions of   the academic environment among university students in Pakistan. Compare, 41(1), 113–127.
Valadas, S., Gonçalves, F. & Faísca, L. (2010). Approaches to studying in higher education Portuguese students: A Portuguese version of the Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students. Higher Education, 59, 259-275.
Watkins, D. (2001). Correlates of approaches to learning: A cross-cultural meta-analysis. In R. Sternberg & L. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles (pp.165-195). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wilson, K. L., Smart, R. M., & Watson, R. J. (1996).Gender differences in approaches to learning in first year psychology students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 368-383.
Yonker, J. E. (2011): The relationship of deep and surface study approaches on factual and applied test‐bank multiple‐choice question performance. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36:6, 673-686.
Young, A. J., Arbreton, A. J. A., & Midgley, C. (1992). All content areas may not becreated equal:motivational orientation and cognitive strategy use in four academic domains. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Zeegers, P. (2004). student learning in higher education: path analysis of academic achievement  in science. Tig education research & development, 23, 1.
Zhang, L. (2003). Does the big five predictlearning approaches? Personality and Individual  Differences, 34, 1431-1446.
Zhang, L. F. (2000). University students’ learning approaches in three cultures: An investigation of Biggs’s 3P Model. The Journal ofPersonality, 134, 37-55.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics