Advertisement

Higher Education

, Volume 29, Issue 3, pp 329–343 | Cite as

Learning approaches, study time and academic performance

  • David Kember
  • Qun Wang Jamieson
  • Mike Pomfret
  • Eric T. T. Wong
Article

Abstract

This study investigated the relationship between learning approach, time spent studying and grades awarded. A class of mechanical engineering students (N=34; male) were asked to keep an hour-by-hour study diary for one week. The Biggs' Study Process Questionnaire (SPQ) provided measures of these students' approach to study tasks. Use of a surface approach to learning was found to be positively correlated with both high attendance in class and greater hours of independent study time. The former is explained by the surface learner's need for the lecturer to define the course; the latter by the inefficiency of a surface approach. Poor grades in spite of long study hours mirror an inefficient surface approach. This finding suggests the need for individual study counselling. Case studies show that the use of a deep approach does not result in good grades unless accompanied by sufficient work. The diary method in conjunction with the SPQ appears to be a promising method for researching workload, study times and other related variables.

Keywords

Academic Performance Promising Method Learn Approach Study Time Mechanical Engineering 
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. (1987).Student approaches to learning and studying. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  2. Biggs, J. (1989). ‘Approaches to the enhancement of tertiary teaching’,Higher Education Research and Development 8, 7–25.Google Scholar
  3. Biggs, J. (1992).Why and how do Hong Kong students learn? Using the Learning and Study Process Questionnaires. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University.Google Scholar
  4. Bowden, J. (1988). ‘Achieving change in teaching practices’ in Ramsden, P. (ed.),Improving learning. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  5. Chambers, E. (1992). ‘Work-load and the quality of student learning’,Studies in Higher Education 17, 141–153.Google Scholar
  6. Dahlgren, L.O. (1984). ‘Outcomes of learning’, in Marton, F., Hounsell, D. and Entwistle, N. (eds.),The experience of learning. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.Google Scholar
  7. Ellison, G. (1990). The future of first degree courses in engineering.Proposals of the (U.K.) Engineering Professors' Conference Working Party.Google Scholar
  8. Entwistle, N.J. and Entwistle, D. (1970). ‘The relationship between personality, study methods and academic performance’,British Journal of Educational Psychology 40, 132–143.Google Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Gow, L., Kember, D. and Chow, R. (1991). ‘The effects of English language ability on approaches to learning’,RELC Journal 22(1), 49–68.Google Scholar
  11. Kember, D. and Gow, L. (1990). ‘Cultural specificity of approaches to study’,British Journal of Educational Psychology 60, 356–363.Google Scholar
  12. Kember, D. and Gow, L. (1991). ‘A challenge to the anecdotal stereotype of the Asian student’,Studies in Higher Education 16 117–128.Google Scholar
  13. La Palio, L.R. (1981). ‘Time study of students and house staff on a university medical service’,Journal of Medical Education 56, 61–63.Google Scholar
  14. Lee N.Y.A., (1991) The impact of the time factor on student approaches to learning in continuing education. Unpublished MEd Thesis, University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar
  15. Marton, F. and Säljö, R. (1984). ‘Approaches to learning’, in Marton, F., Hounsell, D. and Entwistle, N. (eds.),The experience of learnign. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.Google Scholar
  16. McKay, R. (1978). ‘Effectiveness of learning: the place of study’, in Warren Piper, D. (ed.),The efficiency and effectiveness of teaching in higher education. London: University of London, Institute of Education.Google Scholar
  17. Parer, M. and Benson, R. (1989).Professional training by distance education. Victoria, Australia: Centre for Distance Learning, Gippsland Institute.Google Scholar
  18. Ramsden, P. and Entwistle, N.J. (1981). ‘Effects of academic departments on students' approaches to studying’,British Journal of Educational Psychology 51, 368–383.Google Scholar
  19. Sparkes, J.J. (1989). Quality in engineering education.(U.K.) Engineering Professors' Conference Occasional Paper, No. 1.Google Scholar
  20. Svensson, L. (1977). ‘On qualitative differences in learning: III study skill and learning’,British Journal of Educational Psychology 47, 233–243.Google Scholar
  21. Thomas, P.R. and Bain, J.D. (1984). ‘Contextual differences of learning, approaches: the effects of assessments’,Human Learning 3, 277–240.Google Scholar
  22. Wade, B.K. (1991). A profile of the real world of undergraduate students and how they spend discretionary time. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, Illinois.Google Scholar
  23. Watkins, D. and Hattie, J. (1981). ‘The learning processes of Australian university students: investigations of contextual and personological factors’,British Journal of Educational Psychology 51, 384–393.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Kember
    • 1
  • Qun Wang Jamieson
    • 1
  • Mike Pomfret
    • 1
  • Eric T. T. Wong
    • 1
  1. 1.Hong Kong Polytechnic UniversityKowloonHong Kong

Personalised recommendations