Skip to main content
Log in

Studaxology: the expertise students need to be effective in higher education

  • Published:
Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Students in higher education have to develop two types of expertise; the first refers to the mastery they want to acquire within a well defined occupational or disciplinary domain; the second relates to the deep level learning needed to achieve that mastery as an expert student or studax. Research has indicated that in solving a problem any expert simultaneously has to draw on four types of knowledge. Where the personal organisation of these four leads to effectiveness, this brings about the quintessence of expertise - experiencing problem solving behaviour as intrinsically motivating, or rewarding in itself. This intrinsic motivation integrates experiences of competence (through declarative knowledge), causality (through procedural knowledge), creativity (through situational knowledge) and self regulation (through strategic knowledge). The same will then necessarily hold for the student who proves, by experiencing this very same effectiveness, to be the studax or deep level learner higher education needs.

This paper describes a theory - studaxology - which explains to the student, on the basis of what is being experienced while studying, how to become organized as a person within the study environment, so as to succeed in the required task. Studaxology's core is a 3 × 3 matrix of study experiences, based on that number of sources of variance, empirically identified by means of factor analysis of Likert-type items in study inventories. Its central experience of intrinsic motivation brings together four pairs of complementary experiences (ability vs. difficulty, effort vs. relevance, intention vs. demand and time perspective vs. discipline), with each pair constituting a basic component of intrinsic motivation, and as such reflecting a specific form of metacognitive knowledge. Adequate interpretation and use of the 3 × 3 scores on a similar study inventory enable the studax effectively to meet deep level learning that optimal functioning in higher education demands. Factor analyses of students evaluations of lecturing behaviours can also be fitted into a 3 × 3 matrix equivalent to that of the studax. It is argued from these analyses that the essential prerequisites for achieving studaxological expertise stem from an appropriate initial vocational choice (which will help to produce an internally well-cohering 3 × 3 matrix of experiences) and are further enhanced by an equivalent matrix of lecturing behaviours designed to support students' own study experiences.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Antonovsky, A. (1987). Unraveling the Mystery of Health: How People Manage Stress and Stay Well. San Francisco/London: Jossey Bass Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ausubel, D.P. (1963). The Psychology of Meaningful Verbal Learning. An Introduction to School Learning. New York: Grune and Stratton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J.B. (1979). ‘Individual differences in study processes and the quality of learning outcomes’, Higher Education 8, 381–394.

    Google Scholar 

  • Das, J.P., Kirby, J.R. and Jarman, R.F. (1975). ‘Simultaneous and successive synthesis: An alternative model for cognitive abilities’, Psychological Bulletin 82, 87–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Neve, H.M.F. (1991). ‘University teachers' thinking about lecturing: Student evaluation of lecturing as an improvement perspective for the lecturer’, Higher Education 22(1), 63–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Neve, H.M.F. and Janssen, P.J. (1982). ‘Validity of student evaluation of instruction’, Higher Education 11, 543–552.

    Google Scholar 

  • Entwistle N.J. and Marton, F. (1994). ‘Knowledge objects: Understanding constituted through intensive academic study’, British Journal of Educational Psychology 64, 161–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Entwistle N.J. and Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding Student Learning. London: Croom Helm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, R. (1986). ‘Intelligence as acquired proficiency’, in Sternberg, R.J. and Detterman D.K. (eds.), What Is Intelligence? Contemporary Viewpoints on Its Nature and Definition. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heider, F. (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janssen, P.J. (1989). ‘Task, development, and process in student learning: Towards an integrated theory of studying’, European Journal of Psychology of Education 4(4), 469–488.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janssen, P.J. (1991). ‘On the construct and nomological validity of student descriptions of studying and lecturing by means of Likert type questionnaires: A 3 × 3 matrix of 9 common ‘primary’ factors’, in Carrero, M., Pope, M., Simons R.J., and Pozo J.L. (eds.), Learning and Instruction; European Research in an International Context: Volume III. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janssen, P.J. and De Neve H. (1988). Studeren en doceren aan het Hoger Onderwijs; vakmanschap als leeropdracht. Leuven: Acco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs (N.J.): Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H.W. and Bailey, M., (1993). ‘Multidimensional students' evaluations of teaching effectiveness: a profile analysis’, Journal of Higher Education 64(1), 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marton, F. and Säljö, R. (1976). ‘On qualitative differences in Learning. 1. Outcome and process. 2. Outcome as a function of learner's conception of the task’, British Journal of Educational Psychology 46, 4–11 and 115–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J.H.F. (1991). ‘Study orchestration: the manifestation, interpretation and consequences of contextualised approaches to study’, Higher Education 22, 297–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nuttin, J.R. (1984). Motivation, Planning and Action: A Relational Theory of Behavior Dynamics. Leuven: Leuven University Press and Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pask, G. (1976). ‘Conversational techniques in the study and practice of education’. British Journal of Educational Psychology 46, 128–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polya, G. (1973). How to Solve It: A New Aspect of Mathematical Method. Princeton (N.J.), Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rumelhart, D.E. and Norman, D.A. (1978). ‘Accretion, tuning and restruction: three modes of learning’, in Cotton, J.W.X. and Klatsky (eds.), Semantic Factors in Cognition. Hillsdale (N.J.): Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, R.J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A Triarchic Theory of Human Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stipek, D. (1993). Motivation to Learn: From Theory to Practice. Boston (Mass), Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiner, B. (1986). An Attributional Theory of Motivation and Emotion. New York: Springer Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Janssen, P.J. Studaxology: the expertise students need to be effective in higher education. High Educ 31, 117–141 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00129110

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00129110

Keywords

Navigation