ERIC EJ876462: An Exploration of Student Learning Experiences and Approaches to Learning

2005·0.08 MB·English

by  ERIC

An exploration of student learning
experiences and approaches to learning
Pamela Sutton & Ann Henry, Southampton Institute
The research literature documents the different approaches to learning that students in Higher Education
(HE) can adopt, e.g. deep, surface and strategic. Stage 1 of a longitudinal study aimed to determine the
students’ approach to learning, and to assess whether this was related to previous learning experiences,
initial expectations of HE and learning experiences in HE. A questionnaire study was conducted with 57
Level 1, degree students. The results revealed that a high proportion of students rated themselves as deep
learners. Approach to learning was generally unrelated to previous learning experiences, but was related
to initial expectations of HE. The students’ approach to learning was related to some initial learning
experiences at HE and to assessment grades. It was concluded that the relationships between learning
approach and learning experiences were generally consistent with previous research. In this study, the
strategic approach appeared to be more beneficial in terms of assessment grades.
A
SSESSING STUDENTS’ APPROACHES necessarily understanding the content and
to learning is not a recent interest for meaning of the material. Gibbs (1995)
researchers in Higher Education(HE). found that students adopt this approach
What is novel is the more recent interest when the workload is seen as heavy or when
concerning the perceived quality of student memorisation of material forms the basis of
learning experiences. Part of this new interest assessment. In contrast, a deep approach to
could easily be linked with HE students learning is characterised by a strong motiva-
having an additional role as ‘customer’, with tion to actively understand and make sense
the majority of students being liable for of material read in texts or heard in lectures,
payment of HE course fees. With this in mind, seminars and practical classes (Chalmers &
HE Institutions are mindful that students who Fuller, 1996). This approach will benefit
are not satisfied with either their course or the from good understanding and better long-
Institutional policies, can decide to vote with term retention of material as well as higher
their feet and withdraw from their studies. grades and degree classification (Gibbs,
High student retention rates are desirable for 1995; Trigwell & Prosser, 1991; Watkins &
a number of reasons with financial implica- Hattie, 1985). The third approach
tions being the most obvious to those who summarised by Chalmers and Fuller (1996)
manage HE institutions. is referred to as ‘Achieving’ (Strategic). This
Part of the research on student learning combines both the surface and deep
experiences has involved defining students’ approaches dependent on the tasks and
approaches to learning. Chalmers and Fuller context of the learning situation. The main
(1996) provide an up to date summary of the aim or intention is to use whatever strategies
earlier research from the 1970s and 1980s are necessary to gain high marks.
(e.g. Biggs, 1987; Biggs, 1994; Entwistle, Entwistle, Tait and McCune (2000)
Hanley & Ratcliffe, 1979; Entwistle & reiterate the earlier findings of Entwistle and
Ramsden, 1983; Marton & Saljo, 1976; Saljo, Ramsden (1983) by concluding that positive
1979) that highlights three different correlations are normally found with
approaches. They define the ‘Surface’ academic performance and the strategic
approach to learning as based on a super- approach. They argue that the deep approach
ficial intention to learn information without is more likely to relate to academic success in
42 Psychological Teaching Review Vol. 11 No. 1
An exploration of student learning experiences and approaches to learning
the later years of a degree course, and to be Prosser and Trigwell (1999) provide a
used when assessment is closely linked with useful model [derived from John Biggs’
good evidence of conceptual understanding. (1978) model] that shows links between
In contrast, negative correlations are gener- students’ ‘Approaches to Learning’ and
ally found between academic performance students’ ‘Conceptions of Learning’. They
and the use of a surface approach. refer to this as the Presage-Process-Product
Biggs and Moore (1993) believed that model of student learning which takes into
students’ ‘conceptions of learning’ were account a number of factors that may influ-
based on their earlier school and learning ence student learning. According to their
experiences as well as their current goals and model, the characteristics of the student
motives. An earlier study by Saljo (1979) (e.g. previous experiences) are related to the
found five different conceptions of learning, learning context (e.g. teaching methods and
which were confirmed by subsequent assessment) and these form the ‘Presage’
researchers (e.g. Marton & Ramsden 1987; aspect of the model. The second part of the
Van Rossum & Schenk, 1984) and a further model regards the ‘Process’, which focuses
sixth description added by Marton, dall’Alba on students’ perceptions of the learning
and Beaty (1993). These six descriptions are: context as well as the students’ approaches
a quantitative increase in knowledge; memo- to learning (defined earlier). The ‘Product’
rising and reproduction; applying know- is the final part of the model and refers to
ledge; making sense or abstracting meaning; the students’ learning outcomes. This is
interpreting and understanding reality in a influenced by both the ‘Presage’ and
different way and lastly, changing as a person. ‘Process’ aspects of the model. This model
Hence, the previous research suggests emphasises the importance of the students’
there are links between students’ approaches perceptions of the learning and teaching
to learning, their conceptions of learning and context, and how these are influenced by
their perception of the assessment require- previous experiences of learning and
ments. Chalmers and Fuller (1996) highlight teaching and the context provided by the
that ‘students’ approaches to learning learning institution.
depend on their goals, motives and strategies The objectives of phase 1 of this longitu-
as well as their interpretation or perception of dinal study were to assess: (1) students’
the demands and requirements of the previous learning experiences in Further
learning task’ (p.6). They suggest that the first Education (FE); (2) students’ approach to
three ‘conceptions of learning’ require lower learning (i.e. Surface/Deep/Strategic); and
level cognitive processes such as rote learning (3) their initial expectations of and experi-
or repetition. These are often described as ences in Higher Education (HE). With these
quantitative conceptions and concern acquisi- specific objectives in mind, the Prosser and
tion of isolated facts, skills or procedures. Trigwell (1999) ‘Presage-Process-Product’
These three conceptions could be related to a model was further explored. In order to do
surface approach to learning as proposed by this the following key questions were formu-
earlier researchers such as Biggs (1987) and lated: (1) What approach to learning was
Entwistle and Ramsden (1983). The latter used by students? (2) How do students’
three conceptions are referred to as qualita- previous learning experiences in Further
tive aspects of learning such as understanding Education relate to their approach to
the meaning of new information and relating learning? (3) How do students’ initial expec-
this to what they already know. This generally tations of Higher Education relate to their
involves higher level cognitive processes such approach to learning? (4) How do students’
as critical analysis and evaluation, and relates initial learning experiences in Higher
more easily to a deep approach to learning Education relate to their approach to
(Chalmers & Fuller, 1996). learning?
Psychology Teaching Review Vol. 11 No. 1 43
Pamela Sutton &Ann Henry
Method tions and experiences of HE (Previous Expe-
Design riences & Expectations in Education
This study was focused on two questionnaires (PEEIE), Henry & Sutton, 2000, unpub-
and incorporated both a between and within lished). This measure consisted of 23 ques-
subjects design. tions relating to their previous experiences of
FE, i.e. ‘What style of teaching did you expe-
Participants rience at FE/Sixth form College?’ A further
Fifty-seven participants were recruited from 18 questions referred to their expectations of
a Level 1 degree course. Table 1 details the HE and experiences during Semester 1 at a
number of males and females in each of the College of Higher Education, i.e. ‘When you
four age categories noted on the question- first arrived … what did you expect to do in
naire. seminars?’ and ‘What revision strategies did
you use for Semester 1 exams?’
Materials
Two questionnaires were used along with Procedure
student examination and coursework assign- The participants first completed the PEEIE
ment marks for all units in Semester 1. questionnaire, then approximately one week
later completed the ASI questionnaire.
1. The short 18-item version of the
Approaches to Studying Inventory (ASI, Results
Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983) was used. Six 1. What approach to learning was used by
items refer to each of the three approaches students?
(Surface, Deep and Strategic). An example The Approaches to Studying Inventory
item for each approach is as follows: ‘I tend (ASI) results in three scores, i.e., the
to read very little beyond what is required for student’s deep, surface and strategic score.
completing assignments’ (Surface), ‘I Each of these scores can range from 0 to 24
usually set out to understand thoroughly the (i.e. six questions with a maximum score of
meaning of what I am asked to read’ (Deep), four for each) depending on the strength of
‘It’s important for me to do really well in the the approach used by the student. For the
courses here’ (Strategic). The participants whole sample, the mean scores on the scales
were required to indicate their strength of were, Strategic M = 14.34, Surface M = 15.20
agreement or disagreement with each item and Deep M = 16.20.
on a five-point scale, ranging from ‘definitely The students were divided into groups on
disagree’ (scored as 0) to ‘definitely agree’ the basis of their dominant approach (the
(scored as 4). highest score). Some students showed an
equally high score for two approaches. The
2. A new questionnaire was designed for the percentage of students in each group is
current study to assess previous learning shown in Figure 1, which illustrates that there
experiences in FE as well as initial expecta- were a high percentage of deep learners.
Table 1: Frequency of male and female participants in each age category.
Age/Gender Female Male Total
16–21 years 35 6 41
22–25 years 4 6 10
26–35 years 0 1 1
35+ years 5 0 5
Total 44 13 57
44 Psychological Teaching Review Vol. 11 No. 1
An exploration of student learning experiences and approaches to learning
Figure 1: Percentage of students classified by dominant learning approach.
50
40
e 30
g
a
nt
e
c
er 20
P
10
0
Strategic Learners Deep Learners Surface/Deep
Surface Learners Strategic/Deep
2. How do students’ previous learning expe- on discussion and reflection. This effect was
riences in Further Education relate to their independent of the students’ approach to
approach to learning? learning.
The students were asked what style of The students were asked how often (on a
teaching they had experienced in Further 12-point scale ranging from ‘never’ to
Education. The percentage of students expe- ‘always’) they engaged in different activities
riencing different educational styles is shown when preparing for their assignments and
in Figure 2. The majority of students had their examinations at FE, e.g. skim reading,
experience of tutor directed styles of making notes, and discussing ideas with
learning, e.g. dictated lessons. Fewer had other students. Correlational analysis
experience of lessons where the tutor used between frequency of preparation activity
overhead slides, which may require more and scores on the Deep, Strategic and
work on the part of the student in noting what Surface scales of the ASI questionnaire,
they see as important, and which are more revealed no significant relationships. There-
common in Higher Education. Few students fore the students’ approach to learning was
experienced student led seminars but many unrelated to the frequency with which they
took part in discussion groups and individual engaged in these activities at FE.
work which are more student-directed.
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was 3. How do students’ initial expectations of
performed to assess the relationship Higher Education relate to their approach to
between dominant approach to learning and learning?
how many hours per week the students had The students were asked to indicate what
spent on four types of activities in FE, i.e. they had initially expected to do in lectures
reading, assignments, discussion and reflec- and seminars, from a list of activities given in
tion. This ANOVA showed a significant main the questionnaire. Two MANOVAs were
effect of activity (F(3,144)=14.01, p<0.001), but performed to assess the expectations of
this did not interact with approach firstly, lectures, and then seminars, in rela-
(F(12,144)=0.561, p>0.05). The main effect of tion to each of the Deep, Strategic and
activity is illustrated in Figure 3. The majority Surface approach scores. The analysis
of the students’ time was spent working on looked at each activity and divided the
their assignments, with very little time spent students into between subject groups
Psychology Teaching Review Vol. 11 No. 1 45
Pamela Sutton &Ann Henry
Figure 2: Style of teaching experienced inFurtherEducation.
90
80
70
e
g
a
nt 60
e
c
er
P
50
40
30
Dictated Tutor-led seminars Discussion Individual
OHPs Student-led seminars Groupwork
Figure 3: Time spent on learning activities per week inFurther Education.
6
5
4
e
g
a
nt 3
e
c
er
P
2
1
0
Reading Assignments Discussion Reflection
46 Psychological Teaching Review Vol. 11 No. 1
An exploration of student learning experiences and approaches to learning
Table 2: Mean Strategic and Surface Approach scores in relation to initial expectations
of Seminars at HE.
Strategic Approach Scores Surface Approach Scores
Expectation of Yes No Expectation of Yes No
Seminar Activity Seminar Activity
Taking notes from 13.54 15.35 Discussing topics in 14.73 16.36
board/OHPS’s small groups
Passive listening 16.50 14.17 Discussing material 15.44 13.33
presented in lectures
depending on whether they indicated that The students were asked how much assis-
they would expect to do this activity or not. tance (on a 10-point scale ranging from ‘a
The dependent variables for both great deal of help’ to ‘no help’) they had
MANOVAs were the scores on the three expected from lecturers for essay assign-
approach scales. ments, oral presentations, examination
There were no significant differences preparation and report assignments. Corre-
between expecting a particular activity or not lational analysis between these scales and the
in lectures for any of the three approaches. students’ Deep, Strategic and Surface scores
There were, however, several differences in showed a significant negative correlation
their expectations for seminars. Students between amount of help expected on essay
who expected to actively listen in seminars assignments and their Strategic scores
had a lower mean Deep Score, i.e., 15.39, (r=–0.314, N=53, p<0.05).
compared to those who did not expect to
engage in this activity i.e. 17.88 (F(1,37)=5.60, 4. How do students’ initial learning experi-
p<0.05). Table 2 shows the effects relating to ences in Higher Education relate to their
the Strategic and Surface scores. The approach to learning?
students who expected to take notes from The students were asked how satisfied (on a
the board or OHPs had a lower mean 10-point scale ranging from ‘very satisfied’ to
Strategic score (F(1,37)=4.59, p<0.05), and the ‘not very satisfied’) they were with various
students who expected to passively listen had aspects of their degree course. Correlational
a higher mean Strategic score (F(1,37)=6.35, analysis between these scales and the
p<0.05). Students who expected to discuss students’ Deep, Strategic and Surface scores
topics in small groups had a lower mean showed a significant positive correlation
Surface score, although this effect only between satisfaction with discussions in semi-
approached significance (F(1,37)=3.89, nars and their Strategic scores (r=0.288,
p<0.05), and those who expected to discuss N=53, p<0.05). There was also a significant
lecture material in the seminars had a higher negative correlation between satisfaction
mean Surface approach score (F(1,37)=6.96, with library facilities and Surface scores
p<0.05). (r=–0.28, N=54, p<0.05).
The students were asked how many hours The students were asked what revision
per week of independent work they had strategies they had used in preparation for
expected to carry out when they first started their Semester 1 examinations. A MANOVA
their degree. Correlational analysis between was performed to assess whether they
this and the students’ scores on the Deep, performed a particular strategy or not, in
Strategic and Surface scales showed a signifi- relation to each of the Deep, Strategic and
cant positive correlation with their Strategic Surface approach scores. There was one
scores (r=0.33, N=49, p<0.05). significant effect which showed that those
Psychology Teaching Review Vol. 11 No. 1 47
Pamela Sutton &Ann Henry
students who discussed topics with other was conducted using dominant approach as
students when revising for their exams had a an independent variable must be viewed with
higher mean Deep score, i.e. 17.5, than caution, particularly as this analysis also
those that did not, i.e. 15.10 (F(1,37)=6.15, suffered from low participant numbers in
p<0.05). some groups. However, the majority of the
The students’ responses on the analyses used the three individual scores
Approaches to Studying Inventory (ASI) (deep, surface and strategic) as a dependent
were compared with their semester 1 average variable, as this was less problematic.
grades for coursework, exams, and overall Based on Entwistle and Ramsden’s
average. The students’ scores on the (1983) and Chalmers and Fuller’s (1996)
Strategic scale showed significant positive distinction between learning approaches it
correlations with each of these marks i.e. would seem probable that Level 1 students
with average coursework grade (r=0.30, would show surface approaches to learning.
N=53, p<0.05), average exam grade (r=0.38, The style of teaching they had experienced
N=53 p<0.01), and average overall grade in FE would be more likely to promote
(r=0.38, N=53, p<0.01). The students’ scores surface learning as dictated lessons could
on the Surface scale showed a significant lead to superficial understanding, limited
negative correlation with overall grade comprehension and memorisation of mate-
(r=–0.29, N=54, p<0.05). The correlation rial. Similarly, Saljo’s (1979) initial two
with coursework was again negative but only conceptions of learning refer to a quantity
approached significance (r=0.27, N=54, increase in knowledge and memorising and
p<0.05) and there was no significant correla- reproduction, which relates to the surface
tion between the Surface scale and exams approach to learning (Biggs, 1987; Entwistle
although again the direction was negative & Ramsden, 1983). According to Prosser and
(r=–0.21 N=54 p>0.05). The students’ scores Trigwell (1999) previous experiences are
on the Deep scale did not significantly corre- related to the learning context and this
late with coursework, exam or overall marks would then impact on their approach to
(r=0.09, r=0.11 and r=0.13 respectively, learning. Therefore, experiences at FE
NS=55, ps>0.05). might lead them to show a surface as
opposed to a deep approach to learning at
Discussion the start of their degree studies in HE. This
This section will discuss the results in rela- did not seem to be the case with the current
tion to each of the three approaches to study as more students rated themselves as
learning. deep learners. However, the questionnaire
used was fairly short, and it was possible that
1. Deep Learners demand characteristics were evident. The
Using the ASI, a high percentage of students students could have been completing the
were classified as deep learners, which was a questionnaire in terms of what they ideally
surprising result as this was inconsistent with would do, rather than what they actually do,
the informal observations of tutors. This e.g. ‘I usually set out to understand
classification was made by comparing the thoroughly the meaning of what I am asked
three scores from the Inventory for each to read.’
individual student, and selecting the The students’ dominant approach to
approach with the highest score. This meant learning did not interact with the amount of
that the group of students who were classi- time the students spent on four types of
fied as deep learners had wide ranging activities in FE, i.e. reading, assignments,
scores on the deep approach scale. This situ- discussion and reflection. Therefore, irre-
ation was repeated with the strategic and spective of learning approach, a large
surface scales. Therefore, the analysis that proportion of their time was spent working
48 Psychological Teaching Review Vol. 11 No. 1
An exploration of student learning experiences and approaches to learning
on their assignments at FE and very little tion to the students’ deep approach to
time was spent on reflection and discussion. learning. Those students with a higher deep
It seems that although many students noted score were more likely to discuss topics with
that they had experience of discussing topics other students. This was, therefore, consis-
at HE (see Figure 2) they did not spend tent with Entwistle and Ramsden’s (1983)
much time engaging in this activity. With view that deep learners engage in higher
regard to Prosser and Trigwell’s (1999) levels of thinking and are motivated to
model, the students were concentrating understand the topic area.
upon the end product, rather than engaging The correlations between assessment
in higher levels of cognitive thinking. This grades and the scores on the deep scale were
would be consistent with a surface or all fairly close to zero indicating very little
strategic approach to learning, and inconsis- relationship between these measures. This
tent with a deep approach. This result, there- finding was inconsistent with the previous
fore, provided further doubt on the high findings of Entwistle and Ramsden (1983),
percentage of deep learners reported using Gibbs (1995), Trigwell and Prosser (1991),
the ASI questionnaire. Watkins and Hattie (1985) and Chalmers
The students were asked what they had and Fuller (1996), which indicated that a
initially expected to do in seminars and deep approach to learning would lead to
lectures, when they first started HE. Some of higher grades. However, Entwistle, Tait and
these expectations were related to the scores McCune (2000), note that a positive rela-
on the ASI. Students who did not expect to tionship between a deep approach and
actively listen to the seminar content (e.g. academic success is more likely in the later
write brief notes on anything that they did years of a degree course. So these measures
not understand), had a higher deep score may become more positively correlated as
than those who did expect to do this. Initially the students progress through their degree
this result may seem anomalous, however, it programme. The current results could show
could be argued that the deep learners that while some Level 1 students adopting
would expect to take a more verbally active the deep approach to learning did well in
role in seminars, and not necessarily their examinations and assignments, other
consider that they would just listen. students did not. A reliance on a deep
Chalmers and Fuller (1996) noted that deep approach may lead some students to show a
learners are motivated to actively understand good understanding of material and there-
material which may suggest active listening, fore high marks. Discussing revision topics
but they are much more willing to discuss with other students may mean they think
and debate material in order to help them more deeply, but if the wrong conclusions
understand. Listening, however active, may are drawn or if the student deviates from the
not be perceived by these learners as suffi- topic too much, then this could lead to poor
cient to help them interpret and make sense results due to an inadequate coverage of the
of the material. No significant differences required information.
were found for any of the approaches for
those students who felt that they should 2. Strategic Learners
actively participate in discussions in seminars When asked what they had initially expected
and those that did not. This would appear to to do in seminars when they first started HE,
be because the majority of students (80 per the strategic learners had expected to take
cent), irrespective of approach, recognised notes from overheads and/or the board, and
that they would need to do this in seminars. had expected to passively listen in seminars
The revision strategies that the students (e.g. listen but write or say nothing). It is
engaged in when preparing for their possible that strategic learners, who are
Semester 1 examination showed some rela- motivated towards achieving high marks in
Psychology Teaching Review Vol. 11 No. 1 49
Pamela Sutton &Ann Henry
assignments and examinations (Chalmers & that a strategic approach to learning was
Fuller, 1996), do not necessarily see the more beneficial in terms of the product of
connection between seminars and assign- student learning.
ment marks. They may not see the need to
take notes and are satisfied to just passively 3. Surface Learners
listen to what is being discussed. When asked what they had initially expected
Students with higher strategic scores to do in seminars when they first started HE,
initially expected to have to carry out a large the surface learners did not expect to
number of hours of independent study per engage in discussions in small groups but did
week in HE, and they expected less help expect to discuss lecture material in the
from lecturers with regards to their essay seminars. If these students perceive the need
assignments. This would be consistent with to memorise and reproduce material given
the profile of strategic learners described by to them (Gibbs, 1995), having the lecture
Entwistle and Ramsden (1983) and material reiterated in seminars provides a
Chalmers and Fuller (1996). These learners good opportunity for them to go over this
plan their time to achieve the end product, material, check their understanding and aid
and, therefore, may not expect to be given their memory processes. It may also be that
much assistance precisely because they this initial expectation of seminars was based
believe that they are expected to work more on what they had previously experienced at
independently. FE (Biggs & Moore, 1993). A high
Strategic learners showed more satisfac- percentage (83 per cent) had experienced
tion with small group discussions in seminars tutor-led seminars but only 40 per cent had
in HE. Research would suggest that deep experienced student-led seminars at FE. It is
learners would be more likely to engage in possible that the tutors’ heavy involvement
this type of activity in seminars as this would in these seminars may have revolved around
be compatible with their approach to reiterating class/lecture material. This
learning (Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983; previous experience would then have influ-
Chalmers & Fuller, 1996). However, strategic enced the students’ perceptions of what was
learners adopt both surface and deep expected in seminars once they started HE.
approaches depending on the context The surface learners were less satisfied
(Chalmers & Fuller, 1996). It therefore with the library facilities in HE. With their
seems that in the context of seminars they primary motivation being the need to repro-
were adopting a deep approach to learning duce material (Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983)
and gained satisfaction with discussing topics and a quantity increase in knowledge (Biggs
in more depth. & Moore, 1993), they may rely more heavily
With regards to the students’ results, i.e. on the library facilities, particularly if the
the product of their learning (Prosser & workload is perceived as high (Gibbs, 1995).
Trigwell, 1999), there was a significant posi- This could then lead to a negative rating of
tive correlation between marks and the the library facilities, if they do not fulfil their
students’ score on the strategic scale. This requirements. Whereas deep learners may
was consistent with the view that strategic enjoy learning per se, and, therefore, are
learners are motivated to find an appro- happy to read around a topic, the surface
priate strategy in order to gain high marks learners would be more concerned with only
(Chalmers & Fuller, 1996), and with the finding the core recommended material for
recent findings of Entwistle, Tait and their assignments and then reproducing it.
McCune (2000). This situation was evident The direction of the correlations
for the students’ average coursework grade, between the surface scale and students’
average examination grade, and overall results, i.e. average coursework grade,
semester grade. This would appear to show average examination grade and overall
50 Psychological Teaching Review Vol. 11 No. 1
An exploration of student learning experiences and approaches to learning
semester grade, were all negative, although The findings reported here relate to phase
the only significant correlation was for 1 of a three-year longitudinal study with this
overall semester grade. This could show that cohort of students. The second phase of the
adopting this approach was not effective in study incorporated both the original short
terms of achieving higher grades, which version of the ASI as well as the updated and
supports the findings of Entwistle, Tait and revised version of ASI, the ASSIST
McCune (2000), Entwistle and Ramsden (Approaches and Study Skill Inventory for
(1983) and Gibbs (1995). It could be that Students, see Tait & Entwistle, 1996; Tait,
this approach works well in FE where there Entwistle & McCune, 1998). The second phase
was more emphasis on repetition of infor- of the research explored students’ approaches
mation, but for degree level learning which to learning during Level 2 of their degree
requires a deeper understanding of material, studies. These data include comparisons
this was not an effective approach to adopt. between the students’ scores on the ASI and
ASSIST to explore any differences in these
4. Key Questions and Conclusions quantitative measures. A qualitative dimension
In terms of the four key questions posed in using focus groups was also included in this
the introduction, the study showed that a phase. Focus groups were used to ascertain
large proportion of students rated them- students’ perceptions of learning as well as
selves as deep learners, although problems their own learning experiences and their
were noted with the questionnaire used. conceptions of the learning context (e.g.
Students’ learning experiences in relation to lectures, seminars, practical classes as well as
their approach to learning appeared to coursework and exams). The final phase of the
provide support for Prosser and Trigwell’s longitudinal study examined stability and/or
(1999) Presage-Process-Product Model of change in students’ approaches to learning
Student Learning. For example, there were across Levels 1 to 3 of their degree studies. This
some links shown between experiences, will enable further exploration of Prosser and
current approach and grades, but links Trigwell’s (1999) ‘Presage-Process-Product’
between previous experiences and model of student learning.
approaches were not clearly evident in the
data. The significant relationships between Acknowledgements
initial expectations of HE and approach, and This work was supported by funding from
between early experiences of HE and Southampton Institute.
approach were consistent with the literature Both authors contributed equally to this
(Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983; Chalmers & publication.
Fuller, 1996). However, it appeared that with
this level 1 group of students, the strategic Correspondence
approach was more beneficial than deep or Dr Ann Henry
surface approaches in terms of assessment St.Angela’s College,
and examination grades. This was consistent EducationDepartment,
with more recent work by Entwistle, Tait and Lough Gill, Sligo,
McCune (2000) but contrasts the earlier Co. Sligo,Eire.
literature (e.g. Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983). E-mail: [email protected]
Psychology Teaching Review Vol. 11 No. 1 51