Advertisement

Higher Education

, Volume 22, Issue 3, pp 251–266 | Cite as

Improving the quality of student learning: the influence of learning context and student approaches to learning on learning outcomes

  • Keith Trigwell
  • Michael Prosser
Article

Abstract

Previous studies of the relationship between perceptions and/or evaluations of the learning environment and approaches to study have either not included measures of students' learning outcomes, or have included quantitative differences and not qualitative differences in learning outcomes. The studies reported in this paper focus on the relationship between qualitative differences in learning outcomes, perceptions/evaluations of the learning environment and approaches to study. The results support previous research in identifying relationships between perceptions/evaluations of the learning environment and approach to study and between approach to study and the quality of the learning outcomes. The second of the two studies reported also identifies a relationship between perceptions, approaches and the quality of the outcomes. The results suggest that perceived environments which encourage deep approaches are more likely to facilitate higher quality learning than environments designed to discourage surface approaches.

Keywords

Learning Environment Student Learning Learning Outcome Qualitative Difference Quantitative Difference 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Biggs, J. B. (1989). ‘Approaches to the enhancement of tertiary teaching’, Higher Education Research and Development 8, 7–25.Google Scholar
  2. Biggs, J. B., and Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the Quality of Learning: The SOLO Taxonomy. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  3. Entwistle, N. J. (1989). ‘Approaches to studying and course perceptions: the case of the disappearing relationships’, Studies in Higher Education 14, 155–156.Google Scholar
  4. Entwistle, N. J., and Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding Student Learning. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
  5. Entwistle, N. J., and Tait, H. (1990). ‘Approaches to learning, evaluations of teaching, and preferences for contrasting academic environments’, Higher Education 19, 169–194.Google Scholar
  6. Gunstone, R. F., and White, R. T. (1981). ‘Understanding gravity’, Science Education 65, 291–299.Google Scholar
  7. Hounsell, D. J. (1984). ‘Understanding teaching and teaching for understanding’, in Marton, F., Hounsell, D. J., and Entwistle, N.J., (eds.), The Experience of Learning. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press, pp. 103–123.Google Scholar
  8. Marton, F., and Säljö, R. (1984). ‘Approaches to learning’, in Marton, F., Hounsell, D. J., and Entwistle, N. J. (eds.), The Experience of Learning. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press, pp. 36–55.Google Scholar
  9. Meyer, J. H. F., and Muller, M. W. (1990). ‘Evaluating the quality of student learning. I - An unfolding analysis of the association between perceptions of learning context and approaches to studying at an individual level’, Studies in Higher Education 15, 131–154.Google Scholar
  10. Meyer, J. H. F., and Parsons, P. (1989). ‘Approaches to studying and course perceptions using the Lancaster Inventory’, Studies in Higher Education 14, 137–155.Google Scholar
  11. Meyer, J. H. F., Parsons, P., and Dunne, T. T. (1990). ‘Individual study orchestrations and their association with learning outcome’, Higher Education 20, 67–89.Google Scholar
  12. Moses, I. (1986). ‘Self and student evaluation of academic staff’, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 11, 76–86.Google Scholar
  13. Prosser, M., and Millar, R. (1989). ‘The how and what of learning physics’, European Journal of the Psychology of Education 4, 513–528.Google Scholar
  14. Prosser, M., and Trigwell, K. (1990). ‘Student evaluations of teaching and courses: student study strategies as a criterion of validity’, Higher Education 20, 135–142.Google Scholar
  15. Prosser, M., and Trigwell, K. (in press). ‘Student evaluation of teaching and courses: student learning approaches and outcomes as criteria of validity’, Contemporary Educational Psychology.Google Scholar
  16. Prosser, M., Trigwell, K., and Taylor, P. (1990). ‘Academics' experiences in teaching first year university science courses’, in Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education, Sydney, November 1990.Google Scholar
  17. Ramsden, P. (1985). ‘Student learning research: retrospect and prospect’, Higher Education Research and Development 4, 51–69.Google Scholar
  18. Ramsden, P. (1987). ‘Improving teaching and learning in higher education: a case for a relational perspective’, Studies in Higher Education 12, 275–286.Google Scholar
  19. Ramsden, P. (1989). ‘Perceptions of courses and approaches to studying: an encounter between paradigms’, Studies in Higher Education 14, 157–158.Google Scholar
  20. Ramsden, P. (1991), ‘A performance indicator of teaching quality in higher education: the Course Experience Questionnaire’, Studies in Higher Education, 16, 129–150.Google Scholar
  21. Thomas, J. W., and Rowher, W. D. (1987). ‘Academic studying: the role of learning strategies’, Educational Psychologist 21, 19–41.Google Scholar
  22. Thomas, P. R., and Bain, J. D. (1984). ‘Contextual dependence of learning approaches: the effects of assessments’, Human Learning 3, 227–240.Google Scholar
  23. Trigwell, K., and Prosser, M. (in press). ‘Relating approaches to study and the quality of learning outcomes at the course level’, British Journal of Educational Psychology.Google Scholar
  24. Van Rossum, E. J., and Schenk, S. M. (1984). ‘The relationship between learning conception, study strategy and learning outcome’, British Journal of Educational Psychology 54, 73–83.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Keith Trigwell
    • 1
  • Michael Prosser
    • 2
  1. 1.Centre for Learning and Teaching, University of TechnologySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Centre for Teaching and Learning, University of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations