Advertisement

Learning Environments Research

, Volume 16, Issue 2, pp 201–215 | Cite as

Assessing students’ experiences of teaching–learning environments and approaches to learning: Validation of a questionnaire in different countries and varying contexts

  • Anna ParpalaEmail author
  • Sari Lindblom-Ylänne
  • Erkki Komulainen
  • Noel Entwistle
Original Paper

Abstract

The study examined the use of the modified Experiences of Teaching and Learning Questionnaire (ETLQ) in the Finnish context by focusing on its factor structures and comparing them with those for British data. A total of 2,509 Finnish and 2,710 British students completed the questionnaire. The comparison of the factor structures were conducted using exploratory structural equation modelling (ESEM) and a transformation analysis. Although the differences between the factor structures prevented a combined analysis, the structures were highly similar in the two contexts. The ETLQ appears to be a sufficiently robust and reliable instrument for use across countries and, in addition, at either the level of the degree subject or the single course module.

Keywords

Approaches to learning Cross-cultural Questionnaire Teaching–learning environment 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We gratefully thank Dr Erika Löfström for her efforts in the back translation process and Dr Laura Hirsto and Topi Litmanen for their help with the preliminary analyses. We also acknowledge the help of Jenny Hounsell, who provided the British data, and the university teachers who facilitated their collection.

References

  1. Ahmavaara, Y., & Markkanen, T. (1958). The unified factor model: Its position in psychometric theory and application to sociological alcohol study. Helsinki: The Finnish Foundation for Alcohol Studies.Google Scholar
  2. Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 16, 397–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Biggs, J. (1979). Individual differences in study processes and the quality of learning outcomes. Higher Education, 8, 381–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Biggs, J. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  5. Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university (2nd ed.). Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Cattell, R. B. (1978). The scientific use of factor analysis in behavioral and life sciences. New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of the test. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eley, M. G. (1992). Differential adoption of study approaches within individual students. Higher Education, 23, 231–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Entwistle, N. J. (1998). Motivation and approaches to learning: Motivating and conceptions of teaching. In S. Brown, S. Armstrong, & G. Thompson (Eds.), Motivating students (pp. 15–24). London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  10. Entwistle, N. J. (2009). Teaching for understanding at university: Deep approaches and distinctive ways of thinking. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  11. Entwistle, N. J., & McCune, V. (2004). The conceptual base of study strategies inventories in higher education. Educational Psychology Review, 16, 325–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Entwistle, N. J., McCune, V., & Hounsell, J. (2003). Investigating ways of enhancing university teaching–learning environments: Measuring students’ approaches to studying and perceptions of teaching. In E. De Corte, L. Verschaffel, N. Entwistle, & J. van Merrienboer (Eds.), Unravelling basic components and dimensions of powerful learning environments (pp. 89–107). Oxford: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  13. Entwistle, N., & Peterson, E. R. (2004). Conceptions of learning and knowledge in higher education: Relationships with study behaviour and influences of learning environments. International Journal of Educational Research, 41, 407–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Entwistle, N. J., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
  15. Entwistle, N. J., & Walker, P. (2002). Strategic alertness and expanded alertness within sophisticated conceptions of teaching. In N. Nativa & P. Goodyear (Eds.), Teacher thinking, beliefs and knowledge in higher education (pp. 15–40). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gregorich, S. E. (2006). Do self-report instruments allow meaningful comparisons across diverse population groups?: Testing measurement invariance using the confirmatory factor analysis framework. Medical Care, 44, S78–S94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hui, C. H., & Triandis, H. C. (1985). Measurement in cross-cultural psychology: A review and comparison of strategies. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 16, 131–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kreber, C. (2003). The relationship between students’ course perception and their approaches to studying in undergraduate science courses: A Canadian experience. Higher Education Research and Development, 22, 57–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lawless, C., & Richardson, J. T. E. (2002). Approaches to studying and perceptions of academic quality in distance education. Higher Education, 44, 257–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (1999). Studying in a traditional medical curriculum: Study success, orientations to studying and problems that arise. Helsinki: The University of Helsinki. Faculty of Medicine.Google Scholar
  22. Little, R. J. A., & Rubin, D. B. (1987). Statistical analysis with missing data. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  23. Lizzio, A., Wilson, K., & Simons, R. (2002). University students’ perceptions of the learning environment and academic outcomes: Implications for theory and practice. Studies in Higher Education, 27, 27–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lonka, K., & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (1996). Epistemologies, conceptions of learning, and study practices in medicine and psychology. Higher Education, 31, 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Marsh, H. W., Muthern, B., Asparouhov, T., Lüdtke, O., Robitzsch, A., Morin, A. S., et al. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling, integrating CFA and EFA: Application to students’ evaluation of university teaching. Structural Equation Modelling, 16, 439–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning I: Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1984). Approaches to learning. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell, & N. Entwistle (Eds.), The experience of learning (pp. 39–58). Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.Google Scholar
  28. McCune, V. (2003). Promoting high-quality learning: Perspectives from the ETL project. Paper presented at the 14th Conference on University and College Pedagogy of the Norwegian.Google Scholar
  29. Mustonen, S. (1992). Survo: An integrated environment for statistical computing and related areas. Helsinki: Survo systems Ltd.Google Scholar
  30. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  31. Ramsden, P. (1997). The context of learning in academic departments. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell, & N. Entwistle (Eds.), The experience of learning (pp. 198–216). Edinburgh, UK: Scottish Academic Press.Google Scholar
  32. Raykov, T. (1997). Estimation of composite reliability for congeneric measures. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21, 173–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Richardson, J. T. E. (1994). Cultural specificity of approaches to studying in higher education: A literature survey. Higher Education, 27, 449–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Richardson, J. T. E. (2004). Methodological issues in questionnaire-based research on student learning in higher education. Educational Psychology Review, 16, 347–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Richardson, J. T. E. (2005a). Students’ perceptions of academic quality and approaches to studying in distance education. British Educational Research Journal, 31, 7–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Richardson, J. T. E. (2005b). Instruments for obtaining student feedback: A review of the literature. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 30, 387–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Richardson, J. T. E. (2006). Investigating the relationship between variations in students’ perceptions of their academic environment and variations in study behaviour in distance education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 867–893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Richardson, J. T. E. (2007). Variations in student learning and perceptions of academic quality. In N. J. Entwistle & P. D. Tomlinson (Eds.), Student learning and university teaching (pp. 61–71). Leicester, UK: British Psychological Society.Google Scholar
  39. Richardson, J. T. E. (2010). Perceived academic quality and approaches to studying in higher education: Evidence from Danish students of occupational therapy. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 54, 189–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Richardson, J. T. E., & Price, L. (2003). Approaches to studying and perceptions of academic quality in electronically delivered courses. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34, 45–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rummel, R. J. (1970). Applied factor analysis. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Sadlo, G., & Richardson, J. T. E. (2003). Approaches to studying and perceptions of the academic environment in students following problem-based and subject-based curricula. Higher Education Research and Development, 22, 253–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schmitt, N. (1996). Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha. Psychological Assessment, 8, 350–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tarkkonen, L., & Vehkalahti, K. (2005). Measurement errors in multivariate measurement scales. Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 96, 172–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Teaching & Learning Research Programme (TLRP). (2007). Learning and teaching at university: The influence of subjects and settings. (Research Briefing No.31). Available on the internet at http://www.tlrp.org/.
  46. Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1991a). Improving the quality of student learning: the inuence of learning context and student approaches to learning on learning outcomes. Higher Education, 22, 251–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1991b). Relating approaches to studying and quality of student learning outcomes at the course level. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 61, 265–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Waterhouse, F. (1999). Relations between teachers’ approaches to teaching and students’ approaches to learning. Higher Education, 37, 57–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Vehkalahti, K., Puntanen, S., & Tarkkonen, L. (2007). Effects of measurement errors in predictor selection of linear regression model. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 52, 1183–1195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Watkins, D. (1998). Assessing approaches to learning: A cross-cultural perspective. In B. Dart & G. Boulton-Lewis (Eds.), Teaching and learning in higher education (pp. 124–144). Melbourne, Australia: Australia Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  51. Wiske, M. S. (1998). What is teaching for understanding? In M. S. Wiske (Ed.), Teaching for understanding: Linking research with practice (pp. 61–86). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  52. Xu, R. (2004, September). Chinese mainland students’ experiences of teaching and learning at a Chinese University: Some emerging findings. Paper presented at the BERA 2004 Conference, Manchester, UK.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anna Parpala
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sari Lindblom-Ylänne
    • 1
  • Erkki Komulainen
    • 1
  • Noel Entwistle
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of Behavioural SciencesUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.School of EducationUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghScotland, UK

Personalised recommendations