Higher Education

, Volume 54, Issue 3, pp 385–416 | Cite as

Motives, attitudes and approaches to studying in distance education

Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

This study investigated the relationships between demographic characteristics, motives and attitudes to studying, self-reported study behaviour and measures of outcome. Students taking courses by distance learning received a postal survey containing a short form of the Motivated Strategies and Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) and the Revised Approaches to Studying Inventory (RASI). Path analysis was used to assess the causal relationships among 395 students’ age, gender and prior qualifications, their scores on the MSLQ and the RASI and their marks. Evidence was obtained for the causal efficacy of most of the paths among the main components. In particular, the causal link between variations in students’ motives and attitudes and variations in their study behaviour is bidirectional.

Key words:

approaches to studying attitudes to studying demographic variables Motivated Strategies and Learning Questionnaire motives Revised Approaches to Studying Inventory 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

I thank Linda Price, Alan Woodley and the late Paul Pintrich for assistance and advice in adapting the Motivated Strategies and Learning Questionnaire for use with distance-learning students, and Nick Haycox and his colleagues in the Survey Office of The Open University for selecting the student samples, distributing the survey and scanning the returned questionnaires. An initial account of the findings was presented at a meeting entitled “Baltic 2004: Motivation, Learning and Knowledge Building in the 21st Century”, Stockholm and Tallinn, June 21–24, 2004. I thank Marjon Bruinsma and Noel Entwistle for their comments on that account. I also thank Richard Remedios for his comments and advice.

References

  1. Babbie, E.R. (1973). Survey Research Methods. Belmont, CA: WadsworthGoogle Scholar
  2. Biggs J., (1982). Student motivation and study strategies in university and college of advanced education populationsHigher Education Research and Development 1: 33–55Google Scholar
  3. Biggs J.B., (1988). Assessing student approaches to learningAustralian Psychologist 23: 197–206Google Scholar
  4. Biggs J.B., (1993a). From theory to practice: a cognitive systems approachHigher Education Research and Development 12: 73–85Google Scholar
  5. Biggs J., (1993b). What do inventories of students’ learning processes really measure? A theoretical review and clarificationBritish Journal of Educational Psychology 63: 3–19Google Scholar
  6. Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P. and Zeidner, M. (eds.) (2000). Handbook of Self-Regulation. Orlando, FL: Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  7. Bouffard T., Boisvert J., Vezeau C., Larouche C., (1995). The impact of goal orientation on self-regulation and performance among college studentsBritish Journal of Educational Psychology 65: 317–329Google Scholar
  8. Cattell R.B., (1966). The scree test for the number of factorsMultivariate Behavioural Research 1: 245–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cronbach L.J., (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests Psychometrika 16: 297–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Entwistle N., (1988a). Motivation and learning strategiesEducational and Child Psychology 5(3): 5–20Google Scholar
  11. Entwistle N. (1988b). Motivational factors in students’ approaches to learning, in: Schmeck R.R., (ed.), Learning Strategies and Learning Styles. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 21–51Google Scholar
  12. Entwistle, N., Tait, H. and McCune, V. (2000). ‘Patterns of response to an approaches to studying inventory across contrasting groups and contexts’, European Journal of Psychology of Education 15, 33–48Google Scholar
  13. Entwistle N., Waterston S., (1988). Approaches to studying and levels of processing in university studentsBritish Journal of Educational Psychology 58: 258–265Google Scholar
  14. Garcia, T. and Pintrich, P.R. (1996). ‘Assessing students motivation and learning strategies in the classroom context: The Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire’, in Birenbaum, M. and Dochy, F.J.R.C. (eds.), Alternatives in Assessment of Achievements, Learning Processes and Prior Knowledge. Boston: Kluwer, pp. 319–339Google Scholar
  15. Henson, R.K. and Roberts, J.K. (in press). ‘Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research: common errors and some comment on improved practice’, Educational and Psychological Measurement Google Scholar
  16. Kidder, L.H. (1981). Selltiz, Wrightsman and Cook's Research Methods in Social Relations. 4th edition. New York: Holt, Rinehart and WinstonGoogle Scholar
  17. Kline R.B., (2005). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford PressGoogle Scholar
  18. Laurillard, D. (1979). ‘The processes of student learning’, Higher Education 8, 395–409Google Scholar
  19. Marton, F. (1976). ‘What does it take to learn? Some implications of an alternative view of learning’, in Entwistle, N. (ed.), Strategies for Research and Development in Higher Education. Amsterdam: Swets and Zeitlinger, pp. 32–42Google Scholar
  20. Marton F., Booth S., (1997). Learning and Awareness. Mahwah, NJ: ErlbaumGoogle Scholar
  21. Marton F., Svensson L., (1979). Conceptions of research in student learning Higher Education 8: 471–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pedhazur E.J., (1997). Multiple Regression in Behavioural Research: Explanation and Prediction (3rd ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt BraceGoogle Scholar
  23. Pintrich P.R., (1999). The role of motivation in promoting and sustaining self-regulated learningInternational Journal of Educational Research 31: 459–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pintrich, P.R. (2000). ‘The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning’, in Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P.R. and Zeidner, M. (eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 451–501Google Scholar
  25. Pintrich P.R., (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning in college studentsEducational Psychology Review 16: 385–407Google Scholar
  26. Pintrich P.R., De Groot E.V., (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performanceJournal of Educational Psychology 82: 33–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pintrich, P.R. and Garcia, T. (1991). ‘Student goal orientation and self-regulation in the college classroom’, in Maehr, M.L. and Pintrich, P.R. (eds.), Advances in Motivation and Achievement. Vol. 7. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 371–402Google Scholar
  28. Pintrich P.R., Smith D.A.F., Garcia T., McKeachie W.J., (1991). A Manual for the Use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and LearningGoogle Scholar
  29. Pintrich P.R., Smith D.A.F., Garcia T., McKeachie W.J., (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) Educational and Psychological Measurement 53: 801–813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Prosser M., Trigwell K., (1999). Understanding Learning and Teaching: The Experience in Higher Education. Buckingham, U.K.: SRHE and Open University PressGoogle Scholar
  31. Ramsden, P. (1979). ‘Student learning and perceptions of the academic environment’, Higher Education 8, 411–427Google Scholar
  32. Richardson J.T.E., (1994). Mature students in higher education: I. A literature survey on approaches to studyingStudies in Higher Education 19: 309–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Richardson, J.T.E. (2000). Researching Student Learning: Approaches to Studying in Campus-Based and Distance Education. Buckingham, UK: Open University PressGoogle Scholar
  34. Richardson J.T.E., (2004). Methodological issues in questionnaire-based research on student learning in higher educationEducational Psychology Review 16: 347–358Google Scholar
  35. Richardson J.T.E., (2005). Students’ perceptions of academic quality and approaches to studying in distance educationBritish Educational Research Journal 31: 7–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Richardson J.T.E., King E., (1998). Adult students in higher education: burden or boon? Journal of Higher Education 69: 65–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Richardson J.T.E., Morgan A., Woodley A., (1999). Approaches to studying in distance educationHigher Education 37: 23–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Richardson, T. (1994). ‘Equivalence in non-recursive structural equation models’, in Dutter, R. and Grossmann, W. (eds.), Compstat: 11th Biennial Symposium in Computational Statistics. Vienna: Physica Verlag, pp. 482–487Google Scholar
  39. Schunk, D.H. and Zimmerman, B.J. (eds.). (1998). Self-Regulated Learning: From Teaching to Self-Reflective Practice. New York: Guilford PressGoogle Scholar
  40. Thompson B., (2004). Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Understanding Concepts and Applications. Washington, DC: American Psychological AssociationGoogle Scholar
  41. VanderStoep S., Pintrich P.R., Fagerlin A., (1996). Disciplinary differences in self-regulated learning in college studentsContemporary Educational Psychology 21: 345–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Winne, P. and Hadwin, A. (1998). ‘Studying as self-regulated learning’, in Hacker, D., Dunlosky, J. and Graesser, A. (eds.), Metacognition in Educational Theory and Practice. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 279–306Google Scholar
  43. Wolters C., Pintrich P.R., (1998). Contextual differences in student motivation and self-regulated learning in mathematics, English, and social studies classroomsInstructional Science 26: 27–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zimmerman, B.J. (2000). ‘Attaining self-regulation: a social cognitive perspective’, in Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P.R. and Zeidner, M. (eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 13–39Google Scholar
  45. Zimmerman, B.J. and Schunk, D.H. (eds.) (2001). Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement: Theoretical Perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: ErlbaumGoogle Scholar
  46. Zoski K., Jurs S., (1996). An objective counterpart to visual test for factor analysis: the standard error screeEducational and Psychological Measurement 56: 443–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Educational TechnologyThe Open UniversityWalton HallUK

Personalised recommendations