Abstract
The purpose of the present study is to gain more insight into the relationship between students’ approaches to learning and students’ quantitative learning outcomes, as a function of the different components of problem-solving that are measured within the assessment. Data were obtained from two sources: the revised two factor study process questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F) and students’ scores in their final multiple-choice exam. Using a model of cognitive components of problem-solving translated into specifications for assessment, the multiple-choice questions were divided into three categories. Three aspects of the knowledge structure that can be targeted by assessment of problem-solving were used as the distinguishing categories. These were: understanding of concepts; understanding of the principles that link concepts; and linking of concepts and principles to application conditions and procedures. The 133 second year law school students in our sample had slightly higher scores for the deep approach than for the surface approach to learning. Plotting students’ approaches to learning indicated that many students had low scores for both deep and surface approaches to learning. Correlational analysis showed no relationship between students’ approaches to learning and the components of problem-solving being measured within the multiple choice assessment. Several explanations are discussed.
Résumé
Le but de cette étude est d’avoir une meilleure vue sur la relation qui y a entre la manière d’étudier des étudiants et les résultats quantitatifs, en fonction des différents composants de ‘résolution de cas’ qui sont estimés dans l’examen. Les données ont été obtenus par deux sources: le questionnaire révise de processus facteur deux [revised two factor study process questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F)] et les points obtenus par les étudiants dans leur examen choix multiple final. Employant un modèle de composants cognitifs de ‘résolution de cas’ traduits dans les spécifications de l’examen, les questions du choix multiple étaient divisées en trois catégories. Trois aspects de la structure concernant la connaissance qui peuvent être estimés par un examen de résolution de cas, sont repris dans l’examen distingués par catégories. Cela comprenait: la compréhension des concepts; la compréhension des principes qui lie les concepts; et lier les concepts et principes pour appliquer des conditions et procédures. Les 133 étudiants de deuxième année en droit de notre sondage avaient des points un peu meilleurs pour l’approche de l’étude en profondeur que pour l’approche en surface. Le tracé des manières d’étudier indique que beaucoup d’étudiants avaient des mauvais points pour l’approche en profondeur ainsi qu’en surface. L’analyse corrélationnel ne montre aucune relation entre la manière d’étudier et les composants de ‘résolution de cas’, estimée dans l’examen choix multiple. Plusieurs explications ont été débattues.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anderson, L., & Krathwohl, D. (2001).A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
Biggs, J. (1987).Student approaches to learning and studying. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Biggs, J. (1993). What do inventories of students’ learning processes really measure? A theoretical review and clarification.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 3–19.
Biggs, J. (2003).Teaching for quality learning at university [2nd edition]. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Biggs, J., & Collis, K. (1982).Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy. New York: Academic Press.
Biggs, J., Kember, D., & Leung, D.Y.P. (2001). The revised two-factor study process questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 133–149.
Browne, M.W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. Bollen & R. Stine (Eds.),Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Crawford, K., Gordon, S., Nicholas, J., & Prosser, M. (1998). Qualitatively different experiences of learning mathematics at university.Learning and Instruction, 8, 455–468.
de Corte, E. (1996). Instructional psychology: Overview. In E. De Corte & F.E. Weinert (Eds.),International encyclopedia of developmental and instructional psychology (pp. 33–43). Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.
Dochy, F., Segers, M., Van den Bossche, P., & Gijbels, D. (2003). Effects of problem-based learning: A meta-analysis.Learning and Instruction, 5(13), 533–568.
Dolmans, D., Wolfhagen, H., Scherpbier, A., & Van der Vleuten, C. (2003). Development of an instrument to evaluate the effectiveness of teachers in guiding small groups.Higher Education, 46(4), 431–446.
Driessen, E., & Van der Vleuten, C. (2000). Matching student assessment to problem-based learning: Lessons from experience in a law faculty.Studies in Continuing Education, 22(2), 235–248.
Engel, C.E. (1997). Not just a method but a way of learning. In D. Boud & G. Feletti (Eds.),The challenge of problembased learning (2nd ed., pp. 17–27). London: Kogan Page.
Entwistle, N. (1991). Approaches to learning and perceptions of the learning environment.Higher Education, 22, 201–204.
Entwistle, N., & Ramsden, P. (1983).Understanding student learning. London: Croom Helm.
Entwistle, N., & Tait, H. (1994).The revised approaches to studying inventory. University of Edinburgh: Centre for Research into Learning and Instruction.
Entwistle, N., 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 Merriënboer (Eds.),Powerful Learning environments: Unravelling basic components and dimensions. Amsterdam: Pergamon, Elsevier Science.
Entwistle, N.J., Meyer, J.H.F., & Tait, H. (1991). Student failure: Disintegrated patterns of study strategies and perceptions of the learning environment.Higher Education, 21, 249–261
Gagné, E.D., Yekovich, C.W., & Yekovich, F.R. (1993).The cognitive psychology of school learning (2nd ed.). New York: HarperCollins College publishers.
Gijbels, D., Van de Watering, G., & Dochy, F. (2005). Integrating assessment tasks in a problem-based learning environment.Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(1), 71–84.
Gijselaers, W. (1995). Perspectives on problem-based learning. In W. Gijselaers, D. Tempelaar, P. Keizer, J. Blommaert, E. Bernard, & H. Kasper (Eds.),Educational innovation in economics and business administration: The case of problem-based learning (pp. 39–52). Norwell, Mass: Kluwer.
Glaser, R., Raghavan, K., & Baxter, G.P. (1992).Cognitive theory as the basis for design of innovative assessment: Design characteristics of science assessments (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 349). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
Guay, F., Marsh, H.W., & Boivin, M. (2003). Academic self-concept and academic achievement: Developmental perspectives on their causal ordering.Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 124–136.
Haladyna, T.M. (2004).Developing and validating multiple-choice test items (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hazel, E., Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1996). Student learning of biology concepts in different university contexts.Research and Development in Higher Education, 19, 323–326.
Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (2002). LISREL 8.52: Scientific Software International, Inc.
Kember, D., & Leung, D.Y.P. (1998). The dimensionality of approaches to learning: an investigation with confirmatory factor analysis on the structure of the SPQ and LPQ.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 395–407.
Leung, M., & Chan, K. (2001). Construct validity and psychometric properties of the revised two-factor study process questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F) in the Hong Kong context.Paper presented at the AARE conference, December 2–6, Perth, Australia.
Liddle, M. (1999). Problem based learning in Law: Student attitudes. In J. Marsh (Ed.)Implementing problem based learning project: Proceedings of the first Asia Pacific conference on Problem Based Learning (pp. 235–240). Hong Kong: The University Grants Committee of Hong Kong, Teaching Development Project.
Liddle, M. (2000). Student attitudes toward problem-based learning in law.Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 11(2), 163–190.
Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (2003). Broadening understanding of the phenomenon of dissonance.Studies in Higher Education, 28, 63–77.
Lindblom-Ylänne, S., & Lonka, K. (1999). Individual ways of interacting with the learning environment — Are they related to study success?Learning and Instruction, 9, 1–18.
Lindblom-Ylänne, S., Pihlajamäki, H., & Kotkas, T. (2003). What makes a student group successful? Student-student and student-teacher interaction in a problem-based learning environment.Learning Environment Research, 6(1), 59–76.
Lonka, K., & Lindbom-Ylänne, S. (1996). Epistemologies, conceptions of learning, and study practices in medicine and psychology.Higher Education, 31, 5–24.
Mäkinen, J. (2003).University students’ general study orientations. Theoretical background, measurements, and practical implications (dissertation). Turku: Turun Yliopisto.
Mäkinen, J., & Olkinuora, E. (2003). Personal experience of studying and study success: A three-years follow-up study of university students.Paper presented at the 10th biannual conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, August 26–30, Padova, Italy.
Marton, F. (1981). Phenomenographic: Describing conceptions of learning.International Journal of Educational Research, 19, 277–300.
Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning —I: Outcome and process.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4–11.
Minbashian, A., Huon, G.F., & Bird, K.D. (2004). Approaches to studying and academic performance in short-essay exams.Higher Education, 47(2), 161–176.
O’Neil, H.F., & Schacter, J. (1997).Test specifications for problem-solving assessment (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 463). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
Pintrich, P.R., & De Groot, E.V. (1990). Motivation and self regulated learning components of classroom’ academic performance.Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33–40.
Poikela, E., & Poikela, S. (1997). Conceptions of learning and knowledge —Impacts on the implementation of problembased learning.Zeitschrift fur Hochschuldidactic, 21(1), 8–21.
Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (Eds.) (1999).Understanding learning and teaching. The experience in higher education. Buckingham: The society for research into higher education.
Richardson, J.T.E. (1993). Gender differences in response to the approaches to studying inventory.Studies in Higher Education, 18(1), 3–13.
Richardson, J.T.E. (1995). Mature students in higher education: II. An investigation of approaches to studying and academic performance.Studies in Higher Education, 20(1) 5–17.
Sachs, J., & Gao, L. (2000). Item-level and subscale-level factoring of Biggs’ Learning Process Questionnaire (LPQ) in a mainland Chinese sample.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70(3), 405–418.
Schoenfeld, A.H. (1985).Mathematical problem solving. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Scouller, K. (1998). The influence of assessment method on students’ learning approaches: Multiple choice question examination versus assignment essay.Higher Education, 35, 453–472.
Scouller, K., & Prosser, M. (1994). Students’ experiences in studying for multiple choice question examinations.Studies in Higher Education, 19, 267–279.
Segers, M. (1997). An alternative for assessing problem-solving skills: The overall test.Studies in Educational Evaluation, 23(4), 373–398.
Segers, M., Dochy, F., & Cascallar, E. (2003).Optimizing new modes of assessment: In search of qualities and standards. Boston/Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Smith, M.U. (1991).Toward a unified theory of problem-solving: Views from the content domains. Hilsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Snelgrove, S., & Slater, J. (2003). Approaches to learning: Psychometric testing of a study process questionnaire.Journal of Advanced Nursing, 43(5), 496–505.
Struven, K., Dochy, F., & Janssens, S. (2003). Students’ perceptions about new modes of assessment in higher education: A review. In M. Segers, F. Dochy, & E. Cascallar (Eds.),Optimizing new modes of assessment: In search of qualities and standards (pp. 171–224). Boston/Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Sugrue, B. (1993).Specifications for the design of problem-solving assessments in science. Project 2.1 designs for assessing individual and group problem-solving. Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
Sugrue, B. (1995). A theory-based framework for assessing domain-specific problem solving ability.Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 14(3), 29–36.
Tenenbaum, G., Naidu, S., Jegede, O., & Austin, J. (2001). Constructivist pedagogy in conventional on-campus and distance learning practice: An exploratory investigation.Learning and Instruction, 11, 87–111.
Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1991). Relating approaches to study and the quality of learning outcomes at the course level.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 61, 265–275.
Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Waterhouse, F. (1999). Relations between teachers’ approaches to teaching and students’ approach to learning.Higher Education, 37, 57–70.
Van Rossum, E.J., & Schenk, S.M. (1984). The relationship between learning conception, study strategy and outcome.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 54, 73–83.
Watkins, D. (2001). Correlates of approaches to learning: A cross-cultural meta-analysis. In R.J. Sternberg & L. Zhang (Eds.),Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles (pp. 165–196). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Watkins, D., & Biggs, J. (Eds.) (1996).The Chinese learner: Cultural, psychological and contextual influences. Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong, Comparative Education Research Centre.
Watkins, D., & Regmi, M. (1996). Toward the cross-cultural validation of a Western model of student approaches to learning.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27, 547–560.
Young, J.W. (1993). Grade adjustment methods.Review of Educational Research, 63(2), 151–165.
Zeegers, P. (2001). Student learning in science: A longitudinal study.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 115–132.
Zhang, L.F. (2000). University students’ learning approaches in three cultures: An investigation of Biggs 3P model.Journal of Psychology, 134, 37–56.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gijbels, D., Van de Watering, G., Dochy, F. et al. The relationship between students’ approaches to learning and the assessment of learning outcomes. Eur J Psychol Educ 20, 327–341 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173560
Received:
Revised:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173560