Higher Education

, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp 249–261 | Cite as

Student failure: Disintegrated patterns of study strategies and perceptions of the learning environment

  • N. J. Entwistle
  • J. H. F. Meyer
  • Hilary Tait
Article

Abstract

Data describing students' study orientations, in relation to their evaluations of courses and their preferences for different kinds of learning environment, are reanalysed in the light of recent suggestions that failing students perceive their learning context in atypical ways. Factor analysis and unfolding analysis demonstrate that failing students show inter-relationships between study orientations and preferences for learning environments which point to a disintegration of the coherent patterns previously reported in the full achievement range. The implications of such a disintegration of coherent patterns of perceptions are discussed in the light of case studies of individual students.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Beard, R. and Hartley, J. (1984). Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. London: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  2. Biggs, J. B. (1985). ‘Metalearning and study processes’, British Journal of Educational Psychology 55, 185–212.Google Scholar
  3. Calder, I. (1989). The Study and Learning Strategies of Students in a New Zealand Tertiary Institution. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Waikato, New Zealand.Google Scholar
  4. Entwistle, N. J. (1987). ‘A model of teaching-learning process’, in Richardson, J. T. E., Eysenck, M. W. and Warren Piper, D. (eds.), Student Learning: Research into Education and Cognitive Psychology. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Entwistle, N. J. (1990). ‘Teaching and the quality of learning in higher Education’, in Entwistle, N. J. (ed.), Handbook of educational Ideas and Practices. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Entwistle, N. J. and Brennan, T. (1971). ‘The academic performance of students. II. Types of successful students’, British Journal of Educational Psychology 41, 268–276.Google Scholar
  7. Entwistle, N. J., Hounsell, D. J., Macauley, C., Situnayake, G. and Tait, H. (1989). The Performance of Electrical Engineering Students in Scottish Higher Education. Report to the Scottish Education Department. Edinburgh: Department of Education, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  8. Entwistle, N. J. and Marton, F. (1989). ‘The psychology of student learning’, European Journal of Psychology of Education IV, 449–453.Google Scholar
  9. Entwistle, N. J. and Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding Student Learning. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Harper, G. and Kember, D. (1989). ‘Interpretation of factor analyses from the Approaches to Studying Inventory’, British Journal of Educational Psychology 59, 66–74.Google Scholar
  12. Marsh, H. W. (1987). ‘Students' evaluations of university teachers: research findings, methodological issues, and directions for future research’, International Journal of Educational Research 11 (3).Google Scholar
  13. Marton, F. and Ramsden, P. (1988). ‘What does it take to improve learning?’, in Ramsden, P. (ed.) Improving Learning: New Perspectives. London: Kogan Page, pp. 268–278.Google Scholar
  14. Meyer, J. H. F. and Muller M. W. (1990a). ‘An unfolding analysis of the association between perceptions of learning context and approaches to studying’, South African Journal of Higher Education 4, 46–58.Google Scholar
  15. Meyer, J. H. F. and Muller, M. W. (1990b). ‘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
  16. Meyer, J. H. F. and Parsons, P. (1989). ‘Approaches to studying and course perceptions using the Lancaster inventory - a comparative study’, Studies in Higher Education 14, 137–154.Google Scholar
  17. Meyer, J. H. F., Parsons, P. and Dunne, T. T. (1990a). ‘Individual study orchestrations and their association with learning outcome’, Higher Education 20, 67–89.Google Scholar
  18. Meyer, J. H. F., Parsons, P. and Dunne, T. T. (1990b). ‘Study orchestration and learning outcome: evidence of association over time among disadvantaged students’, Higher Education 20, 245–269.Google Scholar
  19. Newble, D. and Cannon, R. (1989). A Handbook for Teachers in Universities and Colleges. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  20. Parsons, P. and Meyer, J. H. F. (1990). ‘The academically ‘at risk’ student: a pilot intervention programme and its observed effects on learning outcome’, Higher Education 20, 323–334.Google Scholar
  21. Richardson, J. T. E. (1990). ‘The reliability and replicability of the Approaches to Studying Inventory’, Studies in Higher Education 19, 155–168.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • N. J. Entwistle
    • 1
  • J. H. F. Meyer
    • 2
  • Hilary Tait
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Research on Learning and Instruction, University of EdinburghEdinburghScotland
  2. 2.Teaching Methods Unit, University of Cape TownRondeboschSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations