Advertisement

Instructional Science

, Volume 40, Issue 1, pp 159–172 | Cite as

Is the Study Process Questionnaire (SPQ) a good predictor of academic achievement? Examining the mediating role of achievement-related classroom behaviours

  • Jeanette Lyn Fung ChoyEmail author
  • Glen O’Grady
  • Jerome I. Rotgans
Article

Abstract

Studies have shown that the Study Process Questionnaire (SPQ)—which provides a measure of student approaches to learning—is a relatively weak predictor of academic achievement. The present study sought to explore whether students’ achievement-related classroom behaviours, as observed by teachers, can be used as a mediator between student approaches to learning and academic achievement. The SPQ was administered to 1,608 students enrolled in six different diploma programmes offered by a polytechnic in Singapore. Data were analysed by means of correlation and path analysis. In line with existing studies, the results revealed that student approaches to learning was a weak predictor of academic achievement. However, achievement-related classroom behaviours turned out to be a significant mediator between student approaches to learning and academic achievement, effectively doubling the explained variance in academic achievement. Implications of these findings for using the SPQ are discussed.

Keywords

Approaches to learning Study process questionnaire Achievement-related classroom behaviours Student achievement Structural equation modelling 

References

  1. Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Intelligence, personality and interests: Evidence for overlapping traits. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 219–245.Google Scholar
  2. Ackerman, P. L., Bowen, K. R., Beier, M. E., & Kanfer, R. (2001). Determinants of individual differences and gender differences in knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 797–825.Google Scholar
  3. Astin, A. W. (1970). The methodology of research on college impact, part two. Sociology of Education, 43, 451–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bandalos, D. L., & Finney, S. J. (Eds.). (2001). Item parceling issues in structural equation modeling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  5. Biggs, J. B. (1973). Study behaviour and performance in objective and essay formats. Australian Journal of Education, 17, 157–167.Google Scholar
  6. Biggs, J. B. (1976). Dimension of study behaviour: Another look at ATI. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 68–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Biggs, J. B. (1987a). Student approaches to learning and studying. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  8. Biggs, J. B. (1987b). Student approaches in learning and studying. Hawthorn, Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  9. Biggs, J. B. (1987c). The Study Process Questionnaire (SPQ): manual. Hawthorn, Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  10. Biggs, J. B. (1989). Approaches to the enhancement of tertiary education. Higher Education Research and Development, 8, 7–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Biggs, J. B. (1992). Why and how do Hong Kong students learn? Using the learning and study process questionnaires. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University.Google Scholar
  12. Biggs, J. B. & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university. 3rd ed. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Biggs, J. B., Kember, D., & Leung, Y. P. (2001). The revised two-factor Study Process Questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 133–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Booth, P., Luckett, P., & Mladenovic, R. (1999). The quality of learning in accounting education: The impact of approaches to learning on academic performance. Accounting Education, 8(4), 277–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  16. Choppin, B. H. (1990). Evaluation, assessment, and measurement. In H. J. Walberg & G. D. Haertel (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of educational evaluation (pp. 7–8). New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  17. Fan, X., Thomson, B., & Wang, L. (1999). Effects of sample size, estimation methods, and model specification on structural equation. Structural Equation Modelling, 6(1), 56–83.Google Scholar
  18. Gijbels, D., de Watering, G. V., Dochy, G., & den Bossche, P. V. (2005). The relationship between students’ approaches to learning and the assessment of learning outcomes. European Journal of Psychology of Education, XX(4), 327–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gijbels, D., Segers, M., & Struyf, E. (2008). Constructivist learning environments and the (im)possibility to change students’ perceptions of assessment demands and approaches to learning. Instructional Science, 36(5–6), 431–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Graham, J. W., & Hofer, S. M. (2000). Multiple imputation in multivariate research. In T. D. Little, K. U. Schnabel, & J. Baumert (Eds.), Modeling longitudinal and multilevel data: Practical issues, applied approaches, and specific examples. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  21. Groves, M. (2005). Problem-based learning and learning approach: Is there a relationship? Advances in Health Sciences Education, 10, 315–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. Google Scholar
  23. Jones, A., & Jones, D. (1996). Student orientation to independent learning. Higher Education Research and Development, 15(2), 83–96.Google Scholar
  24. Kember, D. (1996). The intention to both memorise and understand: Another approach to learning? Higher Education, 31, 341–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kember, D. (2000). Misconceptions about the learning approaches, motivation and study practices of Asian students. Higher Education, 40, 00–121.Google Scholar
  26. Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 151–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning I. Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Neilson, H. D., Moos, R. H., & Lee, E. A. (1978). Response bias in follow up studies of college students. Research in Higher Education, 9, 97–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. O’Connor, M., & Paunonen, S. (2007). Big Five personality predictors of post-secondary academic performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 971–990.Google Scholar
  30. Ramburuth, P., & Mladenovic, R. (2004). Exploring the relationship between students’ orientations to learning, the structure of students’ learning outcomes and subsequent academic performance. Accounting Education, 13(4), 507–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ramsden, P. (1981). A study of the relationship between student learning and its academic context. unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Lancaster.Google Scholar
  32. Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Scouller, K., & Prosser, M. (1994). Students’ experiences in studying for multiple choice question examination versus assignment essay. Higher Education, 20(1), 5–17.Google Scholar
  34. Snelgrove, s., & Slater, j. (2003). Approaches to learning: Psychometric testing of a study process questionnaire. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 43(5), 496–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Watkins, D. (2001). Correlates of approaches to learning: A cross-cultural meta-analysis. In R. Sternberg & L. Zhang (Eds.), Perspective on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles (pp. 165–195). New Jersey: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  36. Watkins, D., & Hattie, J. (1981). The learning processes of Australian university students: Investigations of contextual and personalogical factors. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 384–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wilding, J., & Andrews, B. (2006). Life goals, approaches to study and performance in an undergraduate cohort. The British Psychological Society, 76, 171–182.Google Scholar
  38. Zeegers, P. (1999). Student learning in science: A longitudinal study using the Biggs SPQ. Paper presented at HERDSA annual international conference, Melbourne.Google Scholar
  39. Zeegers, P. (2002). A revision of the Biggs’ Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ). Higher Education Research & Development, 21(1), 73–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeanette Lyn Fung Choy
    • 1
    Email author
  • Glen O’Grady
    • 1
  • Jerome I. Rotgans
    • 2
  1. 1.Centre for Educational DevelopmentRepublic PolytechnicWoodlandsSingapore
  2. 2.Centre for Research in Pedagogy and PracticeNational Institute of EducationSingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations