Educational Psychology Review

, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp 347–358 | Cite as

Methodological Issues in Questionnaire-Based Research on Student Learning in Higher Education


Students' scores on questionnaires concerning their approaches to studying in higher education exhibit reasonable stability over time, moderate convergent validity with their scores on other questionnaires, and reasonable levels of discriminating power and criterion-related validity. Nevertheless, the internal consistency of the constituent scales and the construct validity of these instruments are variable, their content validity within contemporary higher education is open to question, and their wording may need to be revised when they are used with students from different social or cultural groups. Future research should investigate the possibility of response bias in such instruments and the validity of self-reports concerning study behavior.

approaches to studying higher education methodology questionnaires reliability student learning validity 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Biggs, J. B. (1970). Faculty patterns in study behaviour. Aust. J. Psychol. 22: 161–174.Google Scholar
  2. Biggs, J. B. (1982). Student motivation and study strategies in university and college of ad-vanced education populations. Higher Educ. Res. Dev. 1: 33–55.Google Scholar
  3. Biggs, J. B. (1985). The role of metalearning in study processes. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 55: 185–212.Google Scholar
  4. Biggs, J. B. (1987). Student Approaches to Learning and Studying, Australian Council for Educational Research, Melbourne.Google Scholar
  5. Biggs, J. (1993). What do inventories of students’ learning processes really measure? A theo-retical review and clarification. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 63: 3–19.Google Scholar
  6. Biggs, J., Kember, D., and Leung, D. Y. P. (2001). The revised two-factor Study Process Ques-tionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 71: 133–149.Google Scholar
  7. Cano-Garcia, F., and Justicia-Justicia, F. (1994). Learning strategies, styles and approaches: An analysis of their interrelationships. Higher Educ. 27: 239–260.Google Scholar
  8. Childers, T. L., Houston, M. J., and Heckler, S. E. (1985). Measurement of individual differences in visual versus verbal information processing. J. Consum. Res. 12: 125–134.Google Scholar
  9. Christensen, C. A., Massey, D. R., and Isaacs, P. J. (1991). Cognitive strategies and study habits: An analysis of the measurement of tertiary students’ learning. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 61: 290–299.Google Scholar
  10. Clarke, R. M. (1986). Students’ approaches to learning in an innovative medical school: A cross-sectional study. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 56: 309–321.Google Scholar
  11. Conway, M., and Ross, M. (1984). Getting what you want by revising what you had. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 47: 738–748.Google Scholar
  12. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16: 297–334.Google Scholar
  13. Cureton, E. E. (1965). Reliability and validity: Basic assumptions and experimental designs. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 25: 327–346.Google Scholar
  14. Entwistle, N. (1988). Motivational factors in students’ approaches to learning. In Schmeck, R. R. (ed.), Learning Strategies and Learning Styles, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 21–51.Google Scholar
  15. Entwistle, N. J., and Brennan, T. (1971). The academic performance of students: 2. Types of successful students. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 41: 268–276.Google Scholar
  16. Entwistle, N. J., and Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding Student Learning, Croom Helm, London.Google Scholar
  17. Entwistle, N., Meyer, J. H. F., and Tait, H. (1991). Student failure: Disintegrated perceptions of studying and the learning environment. Higher Educ. 21: 249–261.Google Scholar
  18. Entwistle, N., Tait, H., and McCune, V. (2000). Patterns of response to an approaches to studying inventory across contrasting groups and contexts. Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 15: 33–48.Google Scholar
  19. Entwistle, N., and Waterston, S. (1988). Approaches to studying and levels of processing in university students. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 58: 258–265.Google Scholar
  20. Ericsson, K. A., and Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychol. Rev. 87: 215–251.Google Scholar
  21. Ericsson, K. A., and Simon, H. A. (1984). Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  22. Ericsson, K. A., and Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data (Rev. edn.), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  23. Hambleton, I. R., Foster, W. H., and Richardson, J. T. E. (1998). Improving student learning using the personalised system of instruction. Higher Educ. 35: 187–203.Google Scholar
  24. Hayes, K., King, E., and Richardson, J. T. E. (1997). Mature students in higher education: III. Approaches to studying in Access students. Stud. Higher Educ. 22: 19–31.Google Scholar
  25. Hoc, J. M., and Leplat, J. (1983). Evaluation of different modalities of verbalization in a sorting task. Int. J. Man-Machine Stud. 18: 283–306.Google Scholar
  26. Kember, D., and Gow, L. (1989). A model of student approaches to learning encompassing ways to influence and change approaches. Instr. Sci. 18: 263–288.Google Scholar
  27. Kember, D., and Gow, L. (1990). Cultural specificity of approaches to study. Br. J. Educ. Psy-chol. 60: 356–363.Google Scholar
  28. Kember, D., and Gow, L. (1991). Achallenge to the anecdotal stereotype of the Asian student. Stud. Higher Educ. 16: 117–128.Google Scholar
  29. Kember, D., and Leung, D. Y. P. (1998). The dimensionality of approaches to learning: An investigation with confirmatory factory analysis on the structure of the SPQ and LPQ. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 68: 395–407.Google Scholar
  30. Kolb, D. A., Rubin, I. M., and McIntyre, J. M. (1971). Organizational Psychology: An Experi-ential Approach, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  31. Lonka, K., and Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (1996). Epistemologies, conceptions of learning and study practices in medicine and psychology. Higher Educ. 31: 5–24.Google Scholar
  32. Marton, F. (1975). On non-verbatim learning: I. Level of processing and level of outcome. Scand. J. Psychol. 16: 273–279.Google Scholar
  33. McKelvie, S. J. (1994). Guidelines for judging psychometric properties of imagery question-naires as research instruments: A proposal. Perc. Mot. Skills 79: 1219–1231.Google Scholar
  34. Meyer, J. H. F. (1995). Gender-group differences in the learning behaviour of entering first-year university students. Higher Educ. 29: 201–215.Google Scholar
  35. Meyer, J. H. F., and Dunne, T. T. (1991). Study approaches of nursing students: Effects of an extended clinical context. Med. Educ. 25: 497–516.Google Scholar
  36. Meyer, J. H. F., and Parsons, P. (1989). Approaches to studying and course perceptions using the Lancaster Inventory: A comparative study. Stud. Higher Educ. 14: 137–153.Google Scholar
  37. Meyer, J. H. F., Parsons, P., and Dunne, T. T. (1990a). Individual study orchestrations and their association with learning outcome. Higher Educ. 20: 67–89.Google Scholar
  38. Meyer, J. H. F., Parsons, P., and Dunne, T. T. (1990b). Study orchestration and learning out-come: Evidence of association over time among disadvantaged students. Higher Educ. 20: 245–269.Google Scholar
  39. Murray-Harvey, R. (1994). Learning styles and approaches to studying: Distinguishing be-tween concepts and instruments. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 64: 373–388.Google Scholar
  40. Newstead, S. E. (1992). A study of two “quick-and-easy” methods of assessing individual dif-ferences in student learning. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 62: 299–312.Google Scholar
  41. Nisbett, R. E., and Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychol. Rev. 84: 231–259.Google Scholar
  42. Ramsden, P., and Entwistle, N. J. (1981). Effects of academic departments on students’ ap-proaches to studying. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 51: 368–383.Google Scholar
  43. Reber, A. S. (1985). The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, UK.Google Scholar
  44. Ribich, F. D., and Schmeck, R. R. (1979). Multivariate relationships between measures of learning style and memory. J. Res. Pers. 13: 515–529.Google Scholar
  45. Richardson, J. T. E. (1990). Reliability and replicability of the Approaches to Studying Ques-tionnaire. Stud. Higher Educ. 15: 155–168.Google Scholar
  46. Richardson, J. T. E. (1994a). Cultural specificity of approaches to studying in higher education: A literature survey. Higher Educ. 27: 449–468.Google Scholar
  47. Richardson, J. T. E. (1994b). Mature students in higher education: I. A literature survey on approaches to studying. Stud. Higher Educ. 19: 309–325.Google Scholar
  48. Richardson, J. T. E. (1995a). Cultural specificity of approaches to studying in higher education: A comparative investigation using the Approaches to Studying Inventory. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 55: 300–308.Google Scholar
  49. Richardson, J. T. E. (1996). Measures of effect size. Behav. Res. Meth. Instrum. Comp. 28: 12–22.Google Scholar
  50. Richardson, J. T. E. (1997). Meaning orientation and reproducing orientation: A typology of approaches to studying in higher education? Educ. Psychol. 17: 301–311.Google Scholar
  51. Richardson, J. T. E. (2000). Researching Student Learning: Approaches to Studying in Campus-Based and Distance Education, SRHE and Open University Press, Buckingham, UK.Google Scholar
  52. Richardson, J. T. E., MacLeod-Gallinger, J., McKee, B. G., and Long, G. L. (2000). Approaches to studying in deaf and hearing students in higher education. J. Deaf Stud. Deaf Educ. 5: 156–173.Google Scholar
  53. Richardson, J. T. E., and Woodley, A. (1999). Approaches to studying in people with hearing loss. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 69: 533–546.Google Scholar
  54. Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P. R., and Wrightsman, L. S. (1991). Criteria for scale selection and evaluation. In Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P. R., and Wrightsman, L. S. (eds.), Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes, Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp. 1–16.Google Scholar
  55. Ross, M. (1989). Relation of implicit theories to the construction of personal histories. Psychol. Rev. 96: 341–357.Google Scholar
  56. Ross, M., and Conway, M. (1986). Remembering one's own past: The construction of personal histories. In Sorrentino, R. M., and Higgins, E. T. (eds.), Handbook of Motivation and Cognition: Foundations of Social Behavior, Guilford Press, New York, pp. 122–144.Google Scholar
  57. Schmeck, R. R. (1988). Individual differences and learning strategies. In Weinstein, C. E., Goetz, E. T., and Alexander, P. A. (eds.), Learning and Study Strategies: Issues in Assessment, Instruction and Evaluation, Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp. 171–191.Google Scholar
  58. Schmeck, R. R., and Geisler-Brenstein, E. (1989). Individual differences that affect the way students approach learning. Learn. Indiv. Differ. 1: 85–124.Google Scholar
  59. Schmeck, R. R., Ribich, F., and Ramanaiah, N. (1977). Development of a self-report inventory for assessing individual differences in learning processes. Appl. Psychol. Meas. 1: 413–431.Google Scholar
  60. Speth, C., and Brown, R. (1988). Study approaches, processes and strategies: Are three per-spectives better than one? Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 58: 247–257.Google Scholar
  61. Tait, H., and Entwistle, N. (1996). Identifying students at risk through ineffective study strate-gies. Higher Educ. 31: 97–116.Google Scholar
  62. Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., and Waterhouse, F. (1999). Relations between teachers’ approaches to teaching and students’ approaches to learning. Higher Educ. 37: 57–70.Google Scholar
  63. Vermunt, J. D. H. M., and van Rijswijk, F. A. W. M. (1988). Analysis and development of students’ skill in selfregulated learning. Higher Educ. 17: 647–682.Google Scholar
  64. Watkins, D., and Hattie, J. (1980). An investigation of the internal structure of the Biggs Study Process Questionnaire. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 40: 1125–1130.Google Scholar
  65. Watkins, D., and Hattie, J. (1985). A longitudinal study of the approaches to learning of Australian tertiary students. Hum. Learn. 4: 127–141.Google Scholar
  66. Watkins, D., and Regmi, M. (1996). Towards the cross-cultural validation of a Western model of student approaches to learning. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 27: 547–560.Google Scholar
  67. White, P. A. (1989). Evidence for the use of information about internal events to improve the accuracy of causal reports. Br. J. Psychol. 80: 375–382.Google Scholar
  68. Zeegers, P. (2001). Approaches to learning in science: A longitudinal study. Br. J. Psychol. 71: 115–132.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Educational TechnologyThe Open University, Milton KeynesUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations