document resume - eric · 2014-03-30 · ed 244 959. author title spons agency report no pub date...

ED 244 959

AUTHORTITLESPONS AGENCYREPORT NOPUB DATENOTE

AVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

IDENTIFIERS

ABSTRACT

DOCUMENT RESUME

TM 830 790

Entwistle, Noel 3.; Ramsden, PaulUnderstanding Student Leaining.Social Science Research Council, London (England).ISBN-0-7099-0921-7; ISBN-0-89397-171-582266p.; Foreword by William G. Perry, Jr. Firstpublished in the United States in 1982.Croom Helm Ltd, Provident House, Burrell Row,Beckenham, Kent; Nichols Publishing Company, P.O. Box96, New York, NY 10024.Books (010) -- Reports - Research/Technical (143)

MF01/PC11 Plus Postage.*Academic Achievement; Cognitive Style; *CollegeStudents; *Departments; Foreign Countries; HigherEducation; Intellectual Disciplines; *LearningProcesses; Personality Traits; Questionnaires;Reading Skills; Student Attitudes; StudentCharacteristics; *Study Habits; Study Skills; TestConstructionEngland

The purpose of the research program described herewas to investigate college students' approaches to learning, and todetermine the extent to which these reflected the effects of teachingand assessment demands rather than representing relatively stablecharacteristics of the individual learners. There were six main areaswithin the programs (1) the measurement of approaches to and stylesof studying; (2) the exploration of the cognitive skills, cognitivestyles, and personality characteristics underlying differentapproaches to studying; (3) the extension of Marton's work on readingacademic articles; (4) the identification of students' perceptions ofthe academic 'climate' of departments; (5) the use of interviews toinvestigate students' strategies in carrying out particular types ofacademic task; and (6) an investigation of how contrasting academiccontexts appear to affect the approaches to studying adopted bystudents in those departments. Details of each of these areas ofresearch are presented. (BW)

************************************************************************ Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made *

* from the original document. *

***********************************************************************

Much publicity has been given to expenditurecuts in higher education because the naturalinference is that the quality of the teachingwill suffer. However, we should be moreconcerned with the quality of the learningin universities and polytechnics since ifteachers understood more about the waystudents learn, they could apply theirresources more effectively.

Based on a five-year SSRC researchprogramme; this book provides an in-depthanalysis of students' learning methods; Itexamines the extent to which these reflectthe effects of teaching and assessment; aswell as the individual personalities of thestudents themselves. Interviews with thestudents provide a greater insight into theway they tackle everyday academic tasks suchas reading and assignments. A feature ofthe research is that several different methodsexperiments, semi-structured interviews,and_ statistical analyses of survey_data areused to examine the problems of studentlearning. The culmination of these differenttechniques is a_ clearer insigb into theprocess of student learning which_ has vitalimplications for teachers and students alike,

Noel Entwistle is Bell Professor of Educationand Director of the Godfrey Thomson Unittor Educational Research at the Universityof Edinburgh.

Paul Ramsden is Senior Lecturer in t

Educational Development at the Newcastle uponTyne Polytechnic.

3

Understanding StudentLearning

NOEL J. ENTWISTLE and PAUL RAMSDEN

CROOM HELMLondon & CanberraNICHOLS PUBLISHING COMPANYNew York

Jnderstanding Studentseaming

OEL J. ENTWISTLE and PAUL RAMSDEN

tOOM HELMndon & CanberraCHOLS PUBLISHING COMPANYw York

CONTENTS

Foreword

Preface

Acknowledgements

1; STUDENT LEARNING IN IT3 CONTEXT

2: INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT AND APPROACHESTO STUDYING 6

3: THE PROGRAMME OF RESEARCH 29

4: IDENTIFYING DISTINCTIVE APPROACHESTO STUDYING 33

5; PERSONALITY AND COGNITIVE STYLEIN STUDYING 56

6: APPROACHES TO READING ACADEMIC ARTICLES 84

7: IDENTIFYING STUDENTS' PERCEPTIONOF DEPARTMENTS 111

8; STUDENTS' EXPERIENCES OF LEARNING 131

APPROACHES TO LEARNING IN (..:oNTRASTINGDEPARTMENTS 179

10; LEARNING AND TEACHING IN HIGHEREDUCATION 193

References 219

Appendix 223

Index 244

FOREWORD

by William G. Perry Jr.PrPfessor of Education Emeritus,Harvard University

The authors of -this book invite you to addompanythem in the search for an understanding of howcollege_ students learn. Fifty years have provedthat this understanding will be Complex and hard tofind. Yet the goal is worthy of such heroicstrategies of search and subtle tactics ofdivination as this book reports. I share theseatthtirS' conviction that success -in this search mayenhance the quality of our CiVili2atiOn thrOugh theimprovement of advanced teaching.

Professors of Arts and Sciences on both sidesof the Atlantic long shared a conviction that allthe arts are subject_to intellectual- analysis - allthe arts but one: that of teaching in highereducation. This at was held sacred to the indi-vidual. The good lecturer was one who knew hissubject and gave a clear exposition Of it enlivenedby his own personal style._ Though many a con-Scientious lecturer wondered how so many StiidentSmanaged not to learn what he explained so clearlyihe had little to comfort him but the thought thatstudents differ_in their aptitude. Fbt Shaping histeaching, he had few resources to call upon beyondhis own experiences of- having been taught;

_ The recent economic necessity to attractattdenta and 'retain' them - especially competitivein the United States -_has forced the issues intothe open; It is now legitimate to concede thatsome college__ teaching may be susceptible of improve-ment - even perhaps one's own. There has followoda wave Of 'Faculty Development Programs'; theassumption being that the way to improve teaching isto get in there and improve it. Much universityteaching has_been_so impoverished that even_thesedirect methods have brought some results and won thegratitude of teachers who had worried in secret.

FOREWORD

Out, in these pi-6ijr iiiis the TV camera and the 'teachinghints' have commonly focused solely on the _

teache-p-regentation, The students have thenbeen allowed to evalUate the results with scalesthat ask 'Arm the lectures_well organized?'

Rarely does the evaluation form ask_thestudent 'Did this course give you an opportunity toorganize your thoughts about the_subject?' The very

form of the cvalUatiOn itself therefore confirmsthe students -in a Lockean assumption about educationin Which their responsibility is to be_passiVe re-cipients of the teacher's art, Such teachers'arts as clarity, organization_and_illustratiOn areindeed open to analysis and improvement in_their

own right with only_implicit_reference to students.wasI aa Once on the ostaff of a war -time course in

celestial navigation in which every improvement inthe lucidity of our exposition, beyond a certainpoint, wat accompanied by a deterioration_ in moststudents' capacity to solve navigational problems.

When we cleverly_ pretended befuddlement at criticalmoments and asked the students to bail us out, theresult gave_us confidence that it would be safe togo to sea with them;

The present authors assume boldly that the solepurpose of teaching is to facilitate learning.They assume that learning well organized or not, isdone by the student, They_state openly their hopethat once we understand_ more about howdifferentstudents learn, we can help them to learn better.

BUt who are 'we'? 'Study7counsellorS' or'educationiStt' like myself? The authors_trust, asI do, that as professors of Arts and Sciences cometo understand more about students' ways of leatning;they will the better assist the learning; in short,

they will teach better,____We are back to a prior question,__ Do we not

know how students learn, or should learn, already?We once thought so. In 1942_I_composed a manualof 'Effective study Methods' for freshmen in_a small

College,_ Years later_I discovered that my great-grandfather had composed in 1842 an_identicalmanual for students in an academy in his parish.Hit language differed frommine in being quaint; butotherwise thb handbooks were identical from theiremphasis on principle to the inclusion of a ruledcalendar on the back for the studenhs' convenientin designing a tehedUle of their time. It is acommentary on the slow growthof knowledge in the _

field that both of these_ manuals were ahead of -their

own day - my ancestor's because he was original,

6

FOREWORD

mine because I hid at hand a decade of a movementcalled 'Guided Study' or 'Supervised Study'.Whatwas radical in both manuals was that each con-tained one small concession to the realities of__-student experience: we both_ acknowledged that lifeseldom conformed to the boundaries of a rigidschedule, making the schedule a source of such over-whelming guilt that moral survival required itsconsignment to the WaSte-basket. We each suggested;instead, thatthe student keep a log-book of realityand we offered fictitious and only slightly idealizedexamples of how such schedules-in-the-past-tensemight read.

Apart from this small dbmforti our manuals wereprobably as_USeful,useless, and disruptive; as anyothers. In the forties and fifties researchers madethe stunning discovery that the explication of'principles_and procedures of _effective study ' waslargely redundant: most Students knew them inadvance; they simply_did not follow them. Such anegative finding of mere research was Of course notenough to stop establiShed practitioners of_study-coaching likemyself. Some students seemed tobenefit from our efforts;

But we could not quiet our curiosity. _ Inwhat_ways did these 'some students differ from otherstudents? Did otlibt atudents learn best in ways othethan those outlined in our catechism of principle-8?These simple; fateful questions then multiplied, burstthe boundaries of the field and went questing in alldirections at once. _Relevant variablt8 revealedthemselves_to reseatcher8 in individual differences_in personality, motivationi styles of perception andcognitioni and manners of linfOrMatibh processing';all qualitative differences well-nigh dissolvingthe global notion_of 'aptitude'.__ These variations Of mind and temperament obser-

vable in individual learners were_found to interact(as the folklore had always ktieWn) With the characterof the severaldisciplines: qualitative vs; quanti.7.tative concrete vs. abstract; analytic vs. synthetic,ambiguous vs. unambiguous, hierarchical vs. con-tiguous_ ,and so_on Viewed as characteristics ofthe several disciplines; however; theae Variablesproved to be unstable. Not only did they varyfromdepartment to department and course to coursewithin a discipline but they varied, as the studentswell knew, with the way a given courso_was taught;The search now entered the social and institutionalcontext in which the learning was carried on._ Here_differences appeared in level of performance deMandedi

FOREWORD

procedures or assessment; 1.1'<edness and_zleXibilityin the guidelines fOr action; degrees and qualityof personal attention in the relation of teacherand learner. These variables:, in turn; were_foundto reflect assumptions abbUt the nature of knowledge-ability defining the context of a classroom orinstitution. Here the search has -led into realmsof epistemology and the sociology of knowledge.

It is into the matrix of these variations oflearnersi_subjects and contexts that the presentauthors take you That they work successfuily.withall three kinds of variables at once -is enoughtP___put them at the forefront of the field but theirtrail opens fresh vistas through theircreativesynthesis of disparate Methods of inquiry.

First of all they have combined both quanti-tative and qualitative modes -of inquiry. Theymodestly claim only to haVe 'alternated' these modes,but you will probably feel that they have made aproductive synthesis through interweaving of quanti7_tative analysis of questionnaires with :he qualitativeassessment of interviews._ (The latter_ assessments,contributed_by the Obthenbtrq researchersi had beensubjected to strict quantifiable discipline.would urge you to accord these data a status of'objectivity' of their own quite comparable to that

Of factor analysis of questionnaires. _This is aclaim_the authors are almost; but not quite; ready

to make).In their assessment ofsocial contexts,_ also,-_

the authors have built on the phenomenological foun-dations of the Gothenburg group_by_focusing_ onstudents' perGapti-Oha rather than on the observationsof outside researchers in which relevance has so longbeen sacrificed to the assumption of objectivity._Here; too the range in different student:3! perceptionsof the same- context has led back fruitfully toindiVidUal differences.

In keeping with theSe modes of inquiry -the-

authors have subordinated the conventional input-output model of tea-earth to focus on the delineationof process. The old preoccupation with students' -ultimate performance following different- methods ofinstruction has too Often obscured the rich,varietyof the intervening learning behaviours and theinflUende on theS0 behaviours -of the learner'santici-pation of the very means by WhiCh performance will be

assessed.The authorS synthesize these modes of inquiry

and foci of attention in a way that provides heuristicpower beyond the sum of the parts. I shall nc.t

/ 0

0REWORD

venture to sunun,e the steps of their search or _

thbit findings. You may find it helpful, however, ifI raise certain questions that will doUbtless riseof themselves as you read. By having them in mindin advance, you maybe prepared to appreciate fromthe outset the challenges the authors have facedand the skill they have brought_ to their tasks.

First of all; about nomenclature. It isinevitable in so complex a field, drawing on researchfindings suddenly emerging, in diverse sources, thatterms and concepts should be unstable. Consider _

such terms as 'cognitive style', 'perceptual style';'learning style', 'learning strategies', 'approach',!orientation', 'study pattern', 'learning skill!,'learning process','strategic approach' er simply'way'. I find little consensus among researchersabout the conceptual referents of such_terms oraboutthe relationships_among them. The authorsof this book cannot be immune to these difficulties.Indeed you may find their struggles_to keep anyone of these terms in one place as illuminating astheir frequent successes.

__Let us suppose now that the authors succeed ineeping_ such terms as 'meaning orientation', 'deepapproadh'; 'surface orientation', 'holistic approach'etc. in stable reference_to distinguishable processescharacterizing the ways different students learn.If we then assume that such learner - characteristics(singly or in constellations) tend to remain stable_over time in individuals we will find it appropriateto speak_of different 'types'_of students. Thepreponderance of research on 'learning styles' to datecan be takento justify the assumption of stabilityOf a large number of learner traits. These findingsprovide the foundations of a number of typologiesclassifying_ learners by various constellations oftraits- posited as stable over time. This evidencecommends us to think in terms of types of students,each_type characterized by abiding preferences forprocding in a certain way in address to_learningtasks, even though these tasks may differ; Indeedsome recent studies have reported that when collegestudents specialize in subject-matter congruent withtheit preferred styles, they_intensify their pre-ference and narrow their variability in response todiffering tasks.

_We now face a serious dilemma; If we acceptthe evidence for stability, we should simply add thenew findings about learner types to our historicefforts to identify students' strengths and steerthem toward the specialties most congenial to them.

11

FOREWORD

We could do no itioro;_ On the other hand the authors of Lhis book

expliCitly state their hope-that the understandingsof research into students' styles will help us toLeach students to learn the better how to learn.Presumably, since all students must learn in more

than a single discipline, they should learn to vary

their learning strategies_in_keeping with the nature

of various tasks. How can we support such a hcipe?

Are we to imagine that learner 'type', though stable,

is not, somehow, immutable? _Or are we to supposethat stability and flexibility occur at differentlevels and that we can help students develop _

variations WI-thin their preferred learning itibile with-

out violating its integrity?The authors of this book did not intend to _

address this dilemma directly. They live with thequestion as a tension_pervading the field, and they

offer their advances_as contributions toward a later

resolution. As reader; however; you may find your-

self pondering the issue. I _want therefore to share

some questions about the assumptions that create the

question.FitSt; a small technicalconcern regarding the

measures from whiCh the finding of 'stability' Of'type' or 'style' derives. How much time is therespondent allowed on each test? A leadingresearcher recently -told MO "The differences in the

means Of the types in our population were small and

we could only get the if we put the students undetheavy time pressure, stop -watch and all". Could it

be that, denied the opportunity_to_survey the nature

of the tasks, the students are artifically limited

to some most frequently_used 'beSt bet' approach?If so, the test may in_fact reveal_a student'S 'best

bet' way of learning,_bUt it cannot demonstrate thatthis way remains invariant_when the student perceivesdifferenceS in tasks: Such a bias of measurementmay be compounded when analysis is limited to studentsscoring at the extremes of a_traitdimension May

not flexibility Of Style be greatest in the studentSScoring nearer the mean? You will be grateful tothe authOrS for letting you know just how they de-signed each inquiry.

Oh a broader scalei_most_striking is the_ _

authors' inclUSibn in their opening chapter Of des-criptions_of the intellectual development of students

in the college years. One of_these descriptionsstarts with tripartite typology_on a dimension ofimpulsivity and rationality. It then traces theconvergence over time of students at the extremes

12

FOREWORD

toward the balanced ideal typo at the mean. Thesecond description of development traces the waystudent$ evolve more complex forms of thought toaccommodate their perception of increased complexity;uncertainty and ambiguity. In this evolution thestudents sequentially revise their conceptions ofknowledge, their Sense of their role as learners;and their expectations of teachers. Both Ofthese descriptions were deriVed from longitudinalstudies of relatively small samples extending overyears_._

The authors point out that their own undertaking;remarkable for its scope and depth; provides neitherfunds nor time for longitudinal research. Yet theywere so generous as to give space to these descriptionsof student development; leaving it to the tedet tospeculate on the teleVance of such developmentaliSsuestoconceptualizations of student types: A8the autnor of one of these deStriptitinS of development,I join theminhoping that you will indeed speculate;One question is unavoidable: "Could a certain Con-stellation of learner-tharadteriStics represent lessan enduring student-type and more a moment ofevolution in a student's notion of what learning isall about?"

You_will of course find more issues to ponderthan those I am sketching What faSeihates me isthe way they all seem to converge at each marker

-

the authors establish in their quest. I end withone example.

In their search for traits distinguishing 'deep'learners -and 'surface' learners; the aUthbrS diSCovereda type of studentswho seemed to be game-players.These seemed concerned first of all with out-guessingthe ultimate assessment, and they pumped theirinstructors_in_the_service of this goal; The pointof it all seemed to be; for theM; the Store. Theauthors named thit type 'strategic'. I confess -a_reservation regarding this use,of the term to labelan address to social context since the authors alsouse it in its usual sense to refer to approaches tolearning in address to subject matter. Ih any ease,their first overall analysis showed that studentsevincing this_Istrategic approach' were among the'surface' learners._ Characteristitally, the authorsdid not stop with this sensible observation but con-tinued to test it with the interplay of factor analysisand ratings of interviews This analysis differentiateda sizable minority of the 'strategic' group who emergedas deep learners.

This fine discriMihatibh involves the very

13

FOREWORD

foUhdations of education. Could it be that_bypaying careful attention to what a good tea-cher has

On his mind some students can learn to read and learn

with deep comprehension? As teachers, thiS is our

only hope.WO have_been hoping_it_for centuries. We know

from our daily experience with 'some' studehtS thatthe hope is well founded. These authors bring us_to the very brink of the scientific confirmation ofthe hope with modern research tools. But they are

doing far more than confirming what we feel we know

already. They are delineating the_ways theSe 'Some'

students learn_and_how they learn to learn. So_

alSO, then; for those 'other' studehtS, Only from

such delineatiehS We can hope to expand 'some'Students- to 'most',

StlidentS sometimes speak for_themselveS about

this motion. In the later chapters of this book

the authors quote from students' interviews._ In

these, some students report the excitement of'realization' - the discovery that learning can be

more than Memorization; even meaningfUl. We can feel

how near the authors have come to the goal of their

seareh.They do not pretend to_have found it. Indeed,

we may feel that they have bben so dedicated in their

care for precise delineation of each cllie in the _

search that they _have been reluctant to stand back,

as we can; to see how_close they may have come tothe place Where all the pieces will fall together;

Such modesty is appropriate to the difficulties;

the Ultimate synthesis must include id-ehtification

of: those strategies or styles of learning so inte-

gral tO persons that to learn other ways would beinefficient_er violating; those_styles or strategies

rwhich seem readily_ learnable; those aspects ofdeVelOpment that provide_or accompany such readiness;

those instruments which best reveal_these variables;

and finally; those conditions of institutional and

teaching context as- the various stUdehtS perceive

them 7 that best fabilitate the students' learnihgand their learning how -to learh.

Wheh We thank these authors for_advancihg us so

far in_this search, they will I am sure reiteratetheir heavy debt to other_ researchers in Britain,

Swedeni Switzerland and North America. They offer

this book_as an invitation to international colla-boration in the search.

Watertown, MassachusettsMarch 1983

d

foUndatiOns of education. Could it be that_by

paying careful attention to what a good_teacher hason his mind some students can learn to read and learn

with deep comprehension? As teachers, thiS is our

only hope.WO have_been hoping_it_for centuries, We know

from our daily experience with 'some'_ students that

the hope is well founded. These authors bring usto the very brink of the scientific confirmation ofthe hope with modern research tools. But they are

cdoing far more than confirming what we feel we know

already. They are delineating the_ways theSe 'some'

students learn andhOW they learn to learn. So

alSO, then; for those 'other' students: Only from

such delineatienS we can hope to expand 'some'Students- to 'most',

Studentt sometimes speak for_themselveS about

this motion. In the later chapters of this book

the authors quote from students' interviews ;_ In

these, some students report the excitement ofrealization' - the discovery that learning can be

more thah memorization, even meaningfUl. WO can feel


search.They do not pretend to_have found it. Indeed;

we may feel that they have been so dedicated in their

care fbt precise delineation of each clue in the -search that they have been reluctant to stand badk,

as we can, to see how_close they may have come tothe place where all the pieces will fall together:

Such modesty is appropriate to the difficulties;

the Ultimate synthesis must include identification

of: those strategies or styles of learning so inte-

gral to persons that to -learn _other ways would be

inefficient or Violating; those_styles or strategies

rwhich seem eadily learnable; those aspects ofdeVelOpment that provide_oraccompany such readiness;

those instruments which best reveal_these variables;and finally, those conditions of institutional and

teachihg context as- the various students perceive

them,7 that best fatilitate the students' learningand their learning how_to learn,

When We thank these authors for_advanding us so

far in_this search, they will I am sure reiteratetheir heavy debt to other- researchers in Britain,

Sweden, Switzerland and North America. _They offer

this book_as an invitation to international colla-boration in the search.

Watertown, MassachusettsMarch 1983

1 4

fetindations of education. Could it be that by

paying carefUl attention to what a good- teacher has

On his mind some students can learn to read and learr

with deep comprehension? As teachers, thit is our

only hope.Wo have -been hoping_it_fer centuries: We,know

from our daily experience with 'some'_studehta thatthe hope is well founded. These authors bring ustd the very brink of the scientific confirmation ofthe hope with 1nd-darn research tools. But they are

doing far more than confirming what we feel we know

already. They are delineating the_ways thdae 'some

students learn andhow they learn to learn. So

also, then; for those 'other' students Only fromsuch delineations we can hope to expand 'some'

students_to 'most'.Students sometimes speak for_themselVet about

this motion. In thelater chapters of this book

the authors quote from students' interviews._ In

these, some students report the excitement ofrealization' - the discovery that learning can be

more than memorization, even meaningful. We can fe


search.They cid not pretend to_have found it Inde-ed;

we may feel that they_have been so dedicated in thei

care for precise delineation of each clUe in the _

search thattheyhave been reluctant to stand babk;

as we can, to see how_closethey may have come tothe place where all the pieces will fall together:

Such modesty_isappropriate to the difficulties

the ultimate synthesis must include identification

of those strategies or styles of learning so inte-

gral to persons that to_learn_other ways would be

inefficiehtdr Violating; thosp_styles or strategic

which seem readily_learnable; those aspects ofdeVelepment that provide_or_accompahy such readiness

those instruments which best reveal_these variables;

and finally, those conditions of institutional and

teaching context - as_the variousstudentS perceivethem r that best facilitate the students' learning

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are grateful to John Wiley and_Sons Ltd; forpermission to_reproduce extracts frOt 'Styles ofLearning and Teaehing' by N.J. Entwistle publishedin 1981.

Chapter One

STUDENT LEARNING IN ITS CONTEXT

Higher education is a large and expensive under-taking. Its effects are felt by all of us.There are currently over half a million full-timestudents in the British system of education whichbuilds on, and goes beyond; sixth-form_studies_andtheir equivalent._ A sizeable proportion of thecountry's wealth flows into the sixty-sevenuniversities and_ polytechnics which dominate thissector. Many of the students who graduate fromthese institutions will eventually occupy some ofthe_most powerful and prestigious positions in oursociety. Whatever contractions the system may facein the 1980s, no-one would wish to -argue that anunderstanding of what goes on in higher educationis unimportant.

It comes as something of a surprise to realisethat, as recently as twenty years ago, there washardly any research into__higher education_inBritain; Writing in 1972, the editors of asymposium of articles on research in this fieldcould say that

a_decade agoi the universities and colleges ofBritain were open to the accusation that theydid research on almost every topic but them-selves ... If they_were_aware_of the need fora better understanding both of fundamentalprinciples in teaching and learning and ofhuman relationships_in the quadrangle; theydid singularly little about it. Ten yearsago a book of this_kind would_necessarily_havebeen very thin. (Butcher and Rudd, 1972).

Research into higher education has sinceestablished itself in this country, as the founding

1

is

iapter One

amENT LEARNING IN ITS CONTEXT

gher education is a large and expensive under-Ring. Its effects are felt by all of us.ere are currently over half a million full -timeudents in the British system of education whichilds on, and goes beyond;_ sixth-form_studies_andeir equivalent;_ A sizeable proportion of theuntry's wealth flows into the sixty-seveniversities and_ polytechnics which dominate thisctor; Many of the students who graduate fromese institutions will eventually occupy some ofe_most powerful and prestigious positions in ourciety. Whatever contractions the system may facethe 1980s, no-one would wish to_argue that an

derstanding of what goes on in higher educationunimportant.

It comes as something of a surprise to realiseat, as recently as twenty years ago, there wasrdly any research into_higher education_initain; Writing in 1972, the editors of amposium of articles on research in this fielduld say that

a_decade ago, the universities and colleges ofBritain were open to the accusation that theydid research oh almost every topic but them-selves ... If they_were_aware_of the need fora better understanding both of fundamentalprinciples in teaching and learning and ofhuman relationships_in the quadrangle, theydid singularly little about it Ten yearsago a book of this_kind would_necessarily_havebeen very thin. (Butcher and Rudd, 1972).

Research into higher education has since:ablished itself in this country, as the founding

1

18

Chapter One

STUDENT LEARNING IN ITS CONTEXT

Higher education is a large and expensive under-taking. Its effects are felt by all of us.There are currently over half a million full-timestudents in the British system of education whichbuilds on, and goes beyond; sixth-form_studies_andtheir equivalent._ A sizeable proportion of thecountry's wealth flows into the sixty-sevenuniversities and_ polytechnics which dominate thissector. Many of the students who graduate fromthese institutions will eventually occupy some ofthe_most powerful and prestigious positions in oursociety. Whatever contractions the system may facein the 1980s, no-one would wish to -argue that anunderstanding of what goes on in higher educationis unimportant.

It comes as something of a surprise to realisethat, as recently as twenty years ago, there washardly any research into__higher education_inBritain; Writing in 1972, the editors of asymposium of articles on research in this fieldcould say that

a_decade agoi the universities and colleges ofBritain were open to the accusation that theydid research on almost every topic but them-selves ... If they_were_aware_of the need fora better understanding both of fundamentalprinciples in teaching and learning and ofhuman relationships_in the quadrangle; theydid singularly little about it. Ten yearsago a book of this_kind would_necessarily_havebeen very thin. (Butcher and Rudd, 1972).

Research into higher education has sinceestablished itself in this country, as the founding

1

is

StUdeilt Learning in its Context

the university environment interact Stilitly and con-

tinuously, and a proper understanding of studentlearning needs to take both thingS into account;

ThiS book contains the findings of the largestprogramme of research into student learning_evercarried out_in Britaini in a form which we hope willbe accessible to Students, lecturers; and all_whohave an interest in higher edUdatiOn. We hope itWill be seen partly as a contribution towards achanging emphasiS in research into higher education.Our_focus is on the process of student learning it-self, and on the way it is influenced for better orworse by the environment in whiCh it takes place;The approach derives much of its impetus from theseminal work of a group of researchers at GothenburgUniversity in Sweden whose research will be des-cribed in the next Chapter; Qualitative methods,such as semi-structured interviews; are one of thehallmarks of this perspective. More traditional_quantitative techhigUeS can, as we_shall seek alsobe incorporated without losing sight Of the mainstrengths of the approach; indeed; _they can_enrichit. This perspective cuts across disciplines: in-sights from sociology and anthropology completent_psychological viewpoints: The interest is not somuch in the conventional outcomes of higher edu-ddtiOn - degree performance and numbers of student8as a proportion of resources. invested -_as_tn_whatlearning means to the students. This kind of re-search examines different conceptions of subject7matter and differences in how StudentS tackle learn-ing ta8k8; and looks at_how these differences ariseand how they are related to the level of understand-ing reached._ How do students approach every dayacadetic tasks like reading, problem solving and

assessment? Why do they seem to prefer very _

different approaches? How do students' ways oflearning in different subjects differ? How is theirlearning_ influenced by personal preferences and thetasks and teaching they encounter? Which_ways_ofstudying are most likely to biting success and satis-faction?

Many of thOSO questions start_from_the point ofview of the student, rather than that of the teacheror researcher; _ We shall_argue that they- offer anunderstanding of the reality of student learningwhich other perspectives cannot. The answers totheSe issues also have_some far - reaching practicalimplications. Many of -the findings of this re-search have immediate relevance to lecturerS whowish to iiiipk6Ve their teaching; and for students who

4

Student Learning in its Context

want to improvehowthey_study. There_are_alsoimplicaLichs for increasing the efficiency

of learning in the costly business of highereducation.

5

Chapter TWo

INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT AND APPROACHES TO STUDYING

The research programme at Lancaster_grew out ofprevious work there which_had beenfundedby theJoseph ROWhttee MOMOrial Trust, The main-purposeof that six-year study, which began in 1968; was to

examine the objectives of lecturers in highereducation in kelatibn to StUdents' academic perfor-mance; The research on studentsdivided into twoparts One was a longitudinal survey designed toidentify student attributeS Whidh might predicttheir subsequent degree_performances, The otherwas an interview study intended to explore students'reasons for entering higher education and their ex-periences of it The experience gained in thisstudy substantially influenced the planning of thenew research programme. On the_one hand, it hadshown the importance of trying to marry qualitativeand quantitative methods of educational research;Oh the Other, it had shown_clearly_the limitationsof the input-output model in thinking about- highereducation, Relatively stable_ psychologicalcharacteristics of students proved to be only_weeklyrelated to levels of academic performance. It be-CaMe Oleat that greater attention_would_have to beplaced on_study processee and on the context, oracademic environment;_ within whichstudents learn.

TheSe two directions of research have beer'developed out of quite separate sets of literature;_In presenting this report, thereforei the conne24-.ual

basis_for the research is also presented separatQly.In this chapter the literature relating to intellec-tual deVeldpMent and approaches to studying is dis-cussed, while research into the academic context oflearning in higher education is introduced inchapter 7.

The studies which have influenced the work ofthe programme are presented largely in historical

6

23

Intellectual Development and Approaches to Studying

order; although at least one of these studies wasnot in fact 'discovered' until quite recently;

LRcTURFRS' FXPW7TATIO5*

Part of the previous work at Lancaster was con-cerned with lecturers' aims and objectives and withstudents' experiences of higher education.Lecturers in various academic departments were askedquestions about what they expected from 'good'students and what they saw as the characteristics ofweaker students. Although there were; of course;great differences in the specific comments oflecturers in co7Frasting departments; there was animportant common thread- running through most of thereplies While knowledge and technical skills wereexpected, students had to be able to_use theseeffectively - to combine and interrelate ideas.Short extracts from the comments of three of thelecturers provide an impression of what, in one wayor another; most lecturers were demanding.

An English lecturer, for example;said:

"I would be expecting a kind of alertness andopenness - that may sound_ very general. Alertto what?_ Alert to all the signs of interest_or significance in passages of literature. Wetry to develop their evaluative SkillS ... todevelop the sense of what is the hand_piece of writing and what is- purely derivative... the pr:Ime moral outcome of a literaturecourse (Should be the) ability -to enter intodifferent individual and social conditions ...to be able to realise what it is like to besomebody else; so that we can properly interactwith other people and not always expect them tobe mutations of oneself or of one's ownculture."**

This section, and parts of other sections-, havebeen taken from Entwistle_ (1981) StrleS-OfLearning and Teachlhg, published_by Wiley; whichcontains fuller descriptions of previous re-search; together with discussions of its psycho-logical bases.

** These interviews were carried out by Keith Percyand have -been reported in more detail elsewhere(Entwistle and Percy, 1971; 1974);

7

_

Intellectual Developnwnt and Approaches to Studying

A history lecturer saw the need for using evi-dehed effectively, again combined wish a fOrm ofsocial awareness.

"History, typically does involve the assemblyof_evidencefcoming to conclusions about cer-tain problems_.; _(you tend) to consider (anidea) froM all angles with a critical eye._Basically if youre treating it non7academiCallyyou tend Merely to accept it_and then to fileit ... (but) then there's going to be no pro-gress or change. Things are not going to moveif you merely adcept YOu've got to scruti-ntze what you're doing -(to see) if the thingcannot be done better;"

In the science departments there was,_of course,mre ompLasis Oh knowledge Of facts; but_even snthere was also a recognition that factual infor-mation, in itself; is a rapidly diminishing asset.'Knowledge' has to be reinterpreted to include

"techniques Of analysis; rather than knowledgeof facts; knowledge of techniques for finc.ingfaCtS, rather than the facts themselves."

The unifying theme both_in the interviews_ and_ in thegeneral literatUre on the aims of university education is that of 'critical thinking', or as AShbyhaS deSetibed it - 'post-conventional thinking'.

"The student-(moves), from the uncriticalacceptance of orthodoxy to creative dissentover_the values and standardsof society..(In higher educatidn)_there must be oppor7tunities for the intellect to be stretched toits capacity the critical faculty sharpened tothe point where it can change ideas" (Ashby;1973; pages 147-9).

What evidence is there that students do develop to-wards the intellectual goal described by lecturers?

RELATIVISTIC REASONING AND THE "REASONABLEADVENTURER"

Two American_interview studies_shed lightehthis question. William Perry (1970) interviewedstudents once in each of their four years at Harvardor Radcliffe; Through all the transcripts of theinterviews there seemed to run a dimension

8

23


describing the progress students made from dualisticthinking to "contextual relativistic reasoning". _

Initially some students_ expected simple 'black andwhite' explanations in both their courses and theireveryday life. Their experience of higher educationw,ts iii_confitut with this c.%peCtstion; they foundinconclusive evidence, alternative theories andcompeting value systems._ The enormity of thisuncertainty challenges fundamental beliefs andvalues and can be a traumatic shock for somestudents.

Perry was able to identify nine positions_alongthe dimension of intellectual and ethical develop-ment. Independent judges checked his categori-zations. His summary of the nine positions isgiven below.

Position 1: The student sees the world in polarterms of_we-right-good vs. other-wrong-bad. RightAnswers for everything exist in the Absolute; knownto Authority whose role is to mediate (teach) them.Knowledge and goodness are perceived as quantitativeaccretions of discrete rightnesses to be collectedby hard work and obedience (paradigm: a spellingtest) .

Position 2: The student perceives diversity ofOpinion, and uncertainty, and accounts_for_them asunwarranted confusion in poorly qualified Authoritiesor as mere exercises set by Authority 'so we canlearn to find The Answer for ourselves'.

Position 3: The student accepts diversity and un-certainty as legitimate but still temporary in areaswhere Authority 'hasn't found the Answer yet'. Hesupposes Authority grades him in these areas on _

'good expression' but remains puzzled as to standards.

Position 4: (a) The student perceives legitimateuncertainty (and therefore diversity of opinion) tobe extensive and raises it to the status of an un- _

structured epistemological realm of its own in which'anyone has a right to his own opinion', a realmWhich he sets over against Authority's_realm_whereright-wrong still prevails; or (b) the student dis-covers qualitative contextual relativistic reasoningas a special case of 'what They want' withinAuthority's realm;

Position 5: The student perceives all knowledge

9


and values (incLuding authority's) as contextualand relativistic and - subordinates dualistic right-wrong functions to the status of a special case, incontext.

Position 6: The student apprehends the necessityof orienting himself in a relativistic world throughsome form of personal Commitment (as distinct fromunquestioned or unconsidered commitment to simplebelief in certainty);

Position 7: The student makes an initial Commit-ment in some area.

Position 8 The student experiences the implicationsof Commitment, and explores the subjective and sty-listic issues of responsibility.

Position 9: The student experiences the affirmationof identity among multiple responsibilities andrealizes Commitment as an ongoing, unfolding,activity_through which he expresses hiS life style."(Perry, 1970, pages 9 - 10);

Perry (1978) provides a humorous interpretationof his carefully articulated scheme, in terms offour 'discoverie. of the obvious'.

10

"When we first come into this world, it is ob-vious that there are authorities and that theyknow what they are doing, or at least so itseems. They tell us what to do and what notto do, and so they -know what they are doing.That is discovery 1.

Discovery 2 is that they do not know whatthey are doing after all And since they donot seem to know what they are doing and do nothave all the answers, we think, 'Hurray! ASsoon as I can get out from under their tyrannyI'm free, and any opinion is as good as anyother, mine included._'

Discovery 3 is that when I get out fromunder their tyranny I walk smack into a plate -glass wall and find that I am still subject toa tyranny, not of they but of fact.. And inthat tyranny of reality I discover that, al-though there are a lot of differences ofopinion among reasonable people, not everyopinion is as good as any other, including somewhich I have that are no good at all And thenI have to get to work and start thinking about

2


all these thiwisThen I make one more discovery, another

obvious one, that I am faced with the challengeOf OffirMing myself and my life as a person:Given so many differences of opinion amongreasonable people, differences which reason _

alone cannot resolve;_I see_that I can never besure I am making the 'right' decisions in life.Arid yet I Must decide. Oh, I have been toldnever to make a wrong decision lest I regret itall my life, but now I see I have no protectionagainst regret. Unless I am going to weaselout of really living, I must choose what I be-lieve in and Own the consequences, and neverknow_what lay down the roads I did not take.I have_discovered ... what it means to commit."(pages267-8).

Perry is stressing how students move_ from thesimplistic__ acceptance of facts presented by author-ity_, through a period of confusion about_ the' natureof knOWledge and belief, to a recognition_ that weneed to establish a personal philosophy of lifewhich is built Out of our own interpretation ofrelevant evidence, but which recognizes, and istolerant of, other people's alternative, even con-flictin%j,interpretations of 'reality':

A very similar dimension ofjntellectual_deveI-opment emerged_from Roy Heath!s_(1964) interviews atPrinceton. But he_defined it in terms of an idealtype the 'reasonable adventurer' - and_three dis-tinctive personality types_'the non-committer', 'thehustler!, and 'the plunger'. The contrasting per-sonalitieS moved along_ different paths towards theintellectual pinnacle already scaled by the reason-7able adventurer: These personalities were limitedboth in their personal relationships and in theirthinking. For example; the non-committer is over-cautious, while the plunger's "thoughts zip_from oneidea to another without apparent connection". Thereasonable adventurer manges to integrate theseapparently contradictory attributes showing

"the combination of two mental attitudes: thecurious and the critical; They do not occursimultaneously but in alternation. (Thereasonable adventurer) at times is a 'believer'but at other times he is a 'skeptic'. The lesseffective personalities may show tendencies to-ward one attitude or the other_but may net_ex-perience the full reach of either". (page 31)

11Z;11


In a moment we shall meet again this descriptionof thinking which brings together competing tenden7cies to create a whole which is more than the sum of

parts.

TIIEMATIZATION AND CUE CONSCIOUSNESS

One limitation in both Heath's and Perry's_research is the lack of any systematic expletatieh_of the ways_in whibh their more intellectually matureStudents approach everyday learning tasks. The _

questions asked are general; both Perry and_Heathwere interested in a Whole range cf students' ex-petionces;_both_personal and academic. In contrasta series of StUdieS, carried out mainly at Gothen7_burg University in Sweden, has examined conceptionsof learning and the way students tackle an acadeMittask of central importance in higher education -rodding an academic article. The fitat two investi-gations deMehStrate a connection between approachesto learning and intellectual development;

Saljo (1979) conducted interviews with adults

who had_differing lengths of formal education. He

was interested in their conceptions Of learning;_One of the Main characteristics of people who hadeither had an extended edUtation; or had taken upstudying again in_adulthood; was the recognitionthat there are different types of learning appropriatefor different sorts of tasks. For the majority ofunsophisticated learners in the sample, learning was

taken for granted' as involving rote memorization.For those_ who had experience of higher edUcation;learning hdd become thematized.

"Learning is something that can be explicitlytalked &biz:Jilt and discussed and can be the (=oie-et

of conscious planning and analysis; In learn-ing; these people realize that there are; forinstance, alternative strategies_or approacheswhich may be useful or Suitable in varioussituations depending on for example, timeavailable, inter-eat; demands of teachers and

anticipated tests." (page 446).

The main distinctieha drawn by these moresophisticated learners; besides the importande Of con-text on the approach adopted; were between learningfor real life and learning in sehbel or betweenlearning and understanding._

The 'awareness' that these learners show about

12

Intellectual Development and Appl-oaches to Studying

Chu selection of appropriate strategies is similarto the 'cue-consciousness' described -by Miller andParlett (1974) in relation to students' preparationfor examinations.

One group of students talked about the need tobe perceptive and receptive to 'cues' sent outby staff_- things like picking up hints aboutexam topics, noticing which aspects of thesubject the staff favoured-, noticing whetherthey were making a good impression in atutorial and so on". (page 52).

The artificiality of the examination situation,and its effects on learning strategies, is seen_clearly by one of the students interviewed in thiSStudy.

"What is the purpose of the examination game?IL becomes purposeless except for you, becauseyou know you want to get a certain class ofdegree within the system, but as far asassimilating knowledge_ properly is concerned,it just doesn't work, because if you play thegame properly you're choosing all the time, andnot getting an overview because you know thereWill be a certain question you have to answer"(page 61) .

The authors of the study identified two moregroups of students The "cue-deaf" were lesssophisticated strategists, not believing that theimpression made on staff could affect their resultsand not picking up hints_ The "cue-seekers" werecue conscious in a very active fashion they -wentout -of -their way to make a favourable impression ontheir lecturers and to buttonhole staff about theexam questions. Miller and Parlett argue that thethree groups of students mirror Perry's three mainstages of intellectual development (dualistic, rela-tivistic, personal commitment to relativisticreasoning).

READING ACADEMIC ARTICLES

The main series of_investigations at GOthenburg,led by Ference Marton, has looked in detail at oneof the main types of learning demanded of students -reading, and understanding, academic articles.Marton criticises previous research on prose learn-ing as being so preoccupied with the quantitative

13


OULComo of learning (how many factsand ideas haveboon remembered); that qualitative aspects ofstudents' understanding_of what they have read havebeen ignored; in spite of the pioneering__research of

tiartLett (1932).__ The prose passages have also beentivi.11 in content; short or- artificially contrivedto facilitate experimental control. Marton exam:___ines_students' approaches to reading relatively long

(1500 words) passages from actual academic articlet.Those passages are chosen to be intelligible withoutprior technical knowledge of_the_subject ared8; andLo contain a tight logical- argument based -on the useof detailed supportive evidence. Students are _

invited; individually, to read thearticle at theirown pace, and in the way they do normally whilestudying; but they are told that questions about it

Will be asked afterwards; When students havefinished readingtthey are interviewed to discoverWhat they have learned and how they approached the

task._During the interview, thestudentS are first

asked a genera' question of the form; "Well_now,porhaps_you can tell me about what you've been

reading"; Students are encouraged, through neutralquestioning, to elaborate what -they have remembered.They are then asked more specific questions aboutsections of the text, followed by another_ generalquestioni_with probes, to discover how they_hadinterpreted the instruction toread the article whattheir intention was in approaching the task (what-_they expected to get_fromthe article); and how theexperimental Situation had affected-- them _(whether___

they were anxious, for example). Finally, in someof the studies4 questions were asked alp-brit theirnormal approach to studying.

The interviews were tape-recorded and trans-cribed: Analysis of the lengthy transcripts wasdifficult and time-consuming. The interviews wereinitially read through as_a_whole and then responsesto separate questions were examined carefully. In

a sense the approach to analysis is similar to thedevelopment of 'grounded theory' (Glaser and StrautS;1967). No explicit theoretical framework_is imposedon the data. The responses_are examined looking forimportant consistencies within each transcript on itsown, then patterns of response recurring across_the_interviews are identified (Svensson,- 1976). Finally;explanatory constructs are hypothetized to facilitateunderstanding of the_students' approaches to learningand levels of outcome (what they remembered)_.

This method of analysis puts an enormous

14

Intellectual Development and Approaches Lo Studying

rospunsibility en the research worker to be guidedby the data without imposing preconceived inter-pretations; It is, of course, crucial to checkthat similar constructs are identified by_indepen-_dont judges. It is extremely unlikely, faced witha relatively unstructured set of free responsesithatdifferent_ judges will identify identical explanatoryconstructs; - In this research, however, there was ahigh level of agreement on the categories which werechosen to describe_both the levels of outcome andthe approaches to learning (Svensson, 1977).

There is also great difficulty in communicatingthe_findings of this type of research. In mostanalyses of interview transcripts, the main cate-gories which best describe recurring types of answerare reported with choice quotes to illustrate them(as in Perry's study). What Marton and hiscolleagues have done is to extend the process ofqualitative analysis much further. Students'__comments are examined more intensively to considerthe implications of consistencies and variabilitieswithin an individual transcript, as well_ as betweentranscripts_. The categories within each explanatoryconstruct that emerges are then delimited - theboundary of meaning surrounding each category is ex-plored in terms of the differing emphases or aspectsmentioned by individual students. The quotationsincluded are thus very carefully selected to providea definition of the various categories within eachexplanatory construct. The instances used to de-limit the categories can then form the basis onwhich independent judges can assign transcripts toresponse categories (Marton, 1975). Of course,when it comes to publishing findings from suchstudies, there is rarely_ sufficient space availableto make fully clear the detailed way in which cate-gories are delimited, and there is a danger that theresults will be- treated as little more than impress-ionistic. In fact this form of qualitative analy-sis now has its own checks and balances, its ownsystematic procedures, to produce findings which havetheir own rigour and their own form of scientificobjectivity.

Following this analytic procedure Marton andhis colleagues were able to describe_importantregularities -both in the qualitatively differentoutcomes of learning (what students were able to re-call about the articles) and in their approaches tolearning.

3 215


LEVELS OF UNDERSTANDING

The problem with categorizing the outcome oflearning is that it necessarily depends on theparticular article read. __But as long as the ar-

ticle is appropriately diffiCUlt and presents aClear :argument supported by evidence, it is possible

to use a general classificatery_scheme for des-cribing differences in the levels of understandingreached by students in these experiments. It isusually possible to identify four types of response(Fransson; 1977; Saljoi 1975).

Conclusion-orientated, detailed

The stUdent summarizes the author's main argu-tent, shows how evidence is used to support theargument, and explains the thoughts and reflectienSused to reach personal understanding of that argu-

ment.

B: Conclusion- orientated, mentioning

Again there is an adequate summary of the mainargument; but the use_of evidence or personal ex -,

perience to support that argument is not made clear.

C. Description -, detailed

The student gives an adequate_list Of the mainpoints presented in the article; but fails to showhow these are developed into an argument.

D. Description, mentioning

A few isolated points are made, some relevant,Others irrelevant. At the bottom end of this cate-gory an impression of confusion and misunderstandingis given by the student'S comments.

When students talked about their approach to,

and process of; reading the_artiele; again a_simpledistinction occurred: Some students adopted a deep

approach. They started with the intention of under-Standing the meaning of the_article; interactedactively_with the author's arguments (relating theM

to previous knowledge_andtheir own experience) andtried to see to what extent the author's conclusionswere justified by _the evidence presented. Other

studentc ccomed to rely_almost exclusively on a sur-

face appreddh. Their intent was to memorize the

16

:VELS OF UNDERTANDING

The problem with dategerizing the outcome of!arning is that it necessarily depends On theirticular article read __But as long as_the ar-:die is appropriately diffitUlt and presents a

:car argument supported by evidence, it is possible

) use a general ClaSSif diCatory_scheme for des -ibing differences in the levels of Understanding.ached by students in these experiments. It is;ually possible to identify four types of responsetati8Son; 1977; SH1jOi 1975).

Conclusion-orientated, detai -1 ed

The student_summari2e8 the author's main argu-ant; shows how evidence is used to support therqument, and explains the thoughts and reflections

c.2(1 to reach personal underStanding of that argu-

2nt.

ConoIusion-orientated, mentioning

Again there is an adequate Summary of the mainrcjument, but the use_of evidence or personal ex-,erience to support that argument is not made clear.

Description -; detailed

The student gives an adequate liSt of the mainoints presented in the article; but fails to showOw these are developed into an argument.

Description, mentioning

A few isolated points are made, some relevant,triers irrelevant. At the bottOM end of this cate-ory an impression of confusion and misunderstandings given by the student'S comments.

When students talked about their amroasj2 to,

End process of reading the article; again a_simplelistinction occurred: Some students adopted a deep

Lpproach. They started with the_intention of under-standing the_meaning of the article, interactedictively with the author's arguments (relating them

:o previous knowledge_andtheir own experience) and.vied to see to what extent the author's conclusions/ere justified by_the evidence presented. Other__;tudont.,; ccomed to rely almost exclusively on a sur-

:ace approach. Their Intent was to memorize the

16

Intellectual Development andApproaches to Studying

A deep approach is thus, at least in this smallsample, clearly related to a_deep level of under-standing. Marton also found that the deep approachwas associated with better recall of detail, par-LieUlarly after a five week interval_ SvenssonLL977) has argued that this relationship should bethought of not simply as statistically significant,but as to some extent inevitable. _ While it ispossible for a student adopting a deep approachto fail to reach a deep level_of understandingthrough lack of previous knowledge or lack of _

attention or effort, it is impossible for a studentadopting a surface approach ever to reach a deepivel of understanding, as long as he persists withthat approach. If deep_understanding depends onbeing able to relate evidence and conclusion, a -

student's approach must necessarily have includedthiS activity if deep understanding has beenreached.

FACTORS AFFECTING THE APPROACH TO STUDYING

The next step in the Gothenburg studies was toexamine the link between a student's approach to _

learning in the experiment and the normal approachto studying, based on the -final question in theinterview. Svensson (1977) was able to detectdeep and surface approaches to normal studying andto compare these both with the experiment and withthe examination performance of the students at theend of their -first year. Table 2.2 shows thatthere were close relationships in both these_ ways;23 out of 30 students were categorized as takingthe same approach in the experiment_and in normalstudying. Of the students classified as beingdeep in both, 90 per cent had passed in all theirexaminations, while only 23 per cent of the doubly'surface' students had this level of success.

18


Table 2.2 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN APPROACHES TO LEARNINGAND STUDYING, AND EXAMINATION PERFORMANCE

(FROM SVENSSON; 1977)

Cognitive Appredth ExaminationPerformance

'Total

Experiment Normal Studies Passed SomeAll Failure

Surface SUrfatb 3 10 13Deep Deep 9 1 10Deep Surface 4 2 6Surface Deep 1 0 1

Svensson went on to show that students adopt-ing a deep approach also tended to spend_longer instudying._ Again this relationship is altdet inevi-table; StUdent8 who study their subjects deeplyare likely to find the material more_interesting andeasier -to understand. Long hours Of work become nohardship then. Students who adopt a surfaceapproach are concentrating on an inappropriatetechnique of loathing - rote memorization. It takesa long time to cover books in_this way, and it is atedious and unrewarding activity. ThUt,eVentually,8tildtit8 who persist with the surface approach are_likely to do less and less work and eventually failtheir examinations: SVeheedh (1977) reported theresults of one examination in which 9 out of 11_students adopting a deep approach to normal studyingalso did three or more hours' independent work a day.All 9 passed_the examination._ - Nineteen studentsadopted a surface approach and 8 of theM, even inthe first year, admitted to working less than threehours a day. All 8 failed the examinatiOh;

- _In another study Saljb was interested inWhether students' approaches to studying were affect-ed by the type -of questions they were given in tests(Marton and Saljo, 1976b). He used two comparablegroups of_students and three separate passages ofprose. The students Were asked to read each -ofthese passages, and after each passage they_wereasked a series of questions. After each Of the

19

Intelleetual Development and Approaches to Studying

first two passayes one 9roup was given questionsdesigned to encourage a deep approach - attention to

the underlying meaning; The other group was givenspecific factual questions, intended to induce asurface approach. After the third passage bothgroups of students were given the same set ofquestions containing both 'deep' and 'surface'

questions. saii6 found that students in the'surface' group who had initially adopted a deepapproach tended to have shifted to a surfaceapproach by the time they read the third passage.Although there was an effect on students in the __

'deep' group,_most of the students who had initiallyadopted a surface app.:each apparently found itdifficuIt_to move fully to a deep approach:Instead they adopted what_Saljo called atechnified' approach. TheS0 students were contentWith summarizing_ the author's argument withoutexamining it actively or in detail; _ SaljO's con-clusion_that it is much easier to induce a surfaceapproach than a deep one could be important. Weshall refer back to it in subsequent chapters.

Another of Marten's- colleagues examined thelevel of understanding of basic concepts reached -by

first.7year students of_economics. Dahlgren (1978,Dahlgren and Marten, 1978) paid particuIar_attentionto the naive concepts, such as that of 'price',which students had at the beginning of the courseand to the technical meanings they should haveUnderstood by the_end. The layman's idea of price,for example, can be expressed as what_an article is

worth .7 what its value is. This implies that'price' is a fixed attribute._ The economist's con-cept of price brings in the idea of supply anddemand. The price of an article depends not Juston the production costs and raw materials i but alsoon_its popularity in relation to its availability;Dahlgren was able to show that although the resultsof a first-year examination implied that_students_should have developed an understanding of the teCh-nical meaning of such basic concepts, in fact:

20

"If amore thorough understanding is requiredin order to answer a question, the number ofacceptable answers is very low ... In manycases ... it appeared_that only a minority ofstudents had apprehended basic concepts in -

economics in the way intended by teachers andtext-bbbk authors: Complex problems seem tobe solved by application of memorized algo-rithmic procedures ... In order to cope with

3(


overwhelming curricula, the students probablyhave to abandon their ambitions to understandwhat they read about and instead direct effortstowards passing the examinations (which re-flect) the view that knowledge is a quantity,and that the highet the level of the education-al System, the more piedes_of_knowledge ShOUldbe taught per time unit" (Dahlgren, 1978, pages1; 11; 12) .

Putting together SaljO'S findings_andDnrilgren's comments we see that the type of questiongiven in a test can_induce a surface approach_tostudying and that the factual overburdening_ of _

Sllnbuses and examinations may be responsible fdtthe low level of understanding exhibited by studentswhen prevented from reproducing answers by well-rehearsed methods,

in many of the reports produced by -the Gothen-burg research group there is a repeated emphasisunthe importance of both content and context inaffeCting a student's approach to learning; Thusit is_not possible to characterize a studentas__'deep', only an aplabaell to a particular academictask. The effect of content and context is shownelegantly in the last of theb Studies._ Fransson(1977) examined how levels of interest and anxietyaffected students' approaches to leathing. Levelot interest was tentrelled by selecting an- articleconcerning examination procedures in the edUdationdepartment: One group of students were in thatdepartMent; another group, from a different depart-ment, _were expected to have much leSS interest inthe article; TWO situations, or contexts for_learning, were created. In one condition studentswere told that after reading the article, onestudent would be chosen to explain out loud what hehad learnt. The explanation would be tape - recordedfor subsequent detailed analysis. A large tape-recorder placed in a prominent_position reinfettedwhat was intended to be an anxiety-prevokingsituation. In the contrasting situation, attemptswere made to create a relaxed friendly atmosphere.

It was clear from the results that both interestand anxiety did affect the students' approaches tolearning, but_not in a simple way. It was not somuch that anxiety - provoking situations induced asurface approach to learning; but that StUdehtS whofelt_the situation to be threatening, whether thatWAS intended or not, were more likely to adopt-asurface approach. Lack of interest or perceived

21

3 3

Intellectual DevelopMeht and Approaches to Studying

rulcvance also tended to evoke this mechanical rote-

learning approach: Thus where a studeht feels

threatened, or under pressure to respond to,examin-atioh demands or syllabuses WhiCh have little per-sonal relevance, it is less likely that a deepapproach will be adopted.

HOLIST AND SERIALIST STRATEGIES OF LEARNING

Pask and his colleagues have carried outseveral series of_experiMehtt in trying_to discoverimportant differences between students in their

learning strategies; Marton deliberately_left hisihstructionsabout reading the article vague; The

studerts had to decide for themselves whetherreading for understandihg or rote memorizat:_on would

be the best way of answering the subsequentquestions abaUt the article. Through this_ambigu-ity it was possible to demonstrate the contrastingapproachet to learning that - students consideredappropriate for thit academic task; _ In most of

Patk's experiments, however, the students arerequired to reach a deep level,of understanding, and

Pask is interested in the strategies they use in try-

ing to carry out this instruction.In the_first series of experiments reported by

Patk (Pask and Scott, l972) he asked studehts to tryto establith for themselves the principles_of_classi-fication underlying_the diVitieh of two imaginaryspecies of Martian animals_- the Clobbits and theGandlemullers - into a series of subspecies, In

the first experiments, information about Clobbitswas provided in the form of 50 cards. These were

placed face down in ten deldtht (each column_representing a separate subspecies). The fiVe rowscontained separate categories of information about

the ten subspecies (e.g. habitat, physical charac-teristics, drawings of animals, etc.). _Students

could also write their own information cards if they

fOund this helpful;Students were asked to turn over the cards to

Obtain the information they wanted: They were toldto_turn the cards over_one at a time_and to give a

reason for the particular card they had chosen.Each reason amounted_to a hypothesis about thenature of_the clattifiCation system_which theinformation -on the card was expected to test._ Arecord was kept of the order in which the cards wereused -and also of the hypothesis given at -each step.

Finally students were_required to 'teachbaek to theexperimenter what they had learned abbUt these

22


Martian animals:Pask discovered interesting differences both_in

the types_of hypothesis used by students and in theways in which they explained the classificationscheMes. Some students concentrated_on_a step-by-sLep strategy in which they used simple hypothesesabout, say; a single property of the animals

"Do Gandlemullers have sprongs ?"

This strategy was described as s_eriall-St, indi-cating the linear progression from one hypothesis tothe next. Other students used more complex hypo-theses which comb-f:ned several properties simul-taneously.

"Are there more kinds Of Gan-diets with mounds(dorsal or cranial) than Plongers?"

This strategy was described as holist, (not to beconfused with Svensson's different use of the sameterm), which indicates a more global approach-toproblem solving. Pask also_ identified an additien-al type_of_holist, the redundant helisti who depen-ded on Individualistic ways of discriminatingbetween the sub-species;

"The ones that were discovered first are gentle; theother kinds, the aggressive beasts that were found later,well they are the one with less mounds."

The important aspect of the redundant hoist is thatimaginary descriptiveterms_are_used. In the Aboveexample, there was nothing in the information givento the student to suggest either an order of dis-covery_or 'temperamental' different-es between thesub-species. what seems to happen is that the _

redundant holist personalizes learning. The Otiletof discovery is probably the bt-clek in which heturned upthe cards, -while an impression of gentle-nessoraggressiveness was perhaps created by thedrawings; In the end the redundant holists under-stood the principles of classification just as wellas--the holists or serialists, bUt they relied onpersonal (redundant) 'props' to aid that under-standing.

When_students were asked to 'teach back' whatthey had learned, very similar differences werefound between the two main types. The serialistsdescribed the principles of classification in a

23

40


straightforward logical manner keeping to the bare

essentials. For example:

"ZtioldgiStt have classified the GandlemUller onthe basis of physical Characteristics; Thethree main types are Gandlers, PlOngers and

Gandleplongera. Gandlers have no sprongs.Plongers have two sprongS. GandleplongershaVe one sprong; There are four_subspedieeofGandler: Ml, M2, Bl and B2 The_ M's_have onebody; the B's have two bodies. The M1 and B1have a single cranial mound; The M2 and B2have a double cranial mound ..: "etc:

In contrast a redUndant holist set about thedescription in a very different way:

"I_want to tell you about a funny Martian_ani-Mal which has been recently discovered andclassified by scientists conducting surveys.They are funny sluglike things with variousprotrUberanCes These animals are calledGandlemullersi becauSe they churn about_in theswamps near the Equator and Candle is theMartian for St4aMpMUd; hence the swampmudmiller(Muller is German for miller). These thingschurn through the mud eating it by some curiousprocess which means they eat and excrete at thesame time."

Only after_a_great deal of redundant elabora-tion does this holist describe the essential pro-perties of the various sub=Spediet, and even thenthey are presented in -an idiosyncratic order. _Itis perhaps unfair to deadribe the holist as illogi-

Cal: it may be that the order follOWS a different

set of rulea. There may well be understandableprinciples in his ordering of the information; if so,

they seem to be more like. those used -by- novelists or

journalists than by scientists: The holist startswith what seems to be the most interesting orstriking point _and includes_a good deal of human or

personal interest. The hOliat thrives on- anecdote;illUatration;_and_analogyi while the serialiSt usesthese sparingly; if at all;

In later series of experiments Pask and hiscolleagues have been able to extend the descriptionsof holists and serialiatS. FOr example; holiststend to look further ahead when asked to work theirway through -a hietatchy of sub-topics towards anUnderstanding of the topic as a whole (Pask; 1976b)=

24

41


They also have a wicle focus of attention, bringingtogether several sub-topics, right from the start(Robertson, 1977). Where students are_given achoice between a series of abstract topics and anexactly parallel series of topics which are drawnfrom the 'real world', serialists_ work their waystep-by7step_through either the abstract topics orthe real world topics, bringing them together onlywhen forced to do sc to achieve overall understand-ing of the main topic. The holists in contrastmove from real world to abstract and back again;examining the_anaIogieS between the two sets oftopics as well. In the end both groups of_studentscan reach the same_level_of understanding, but theirways of reaching.that understanding are very differ-ent. The serialists apparently put much moreemphasis on the separate topics and the logicalsequences connecting them, forming an overall_picture of what_is being learned only rather late inthe process. The holists try to build up thatoverall picture, as a guide to learning, right fromthe start and_see where the detailS fit into thatpicture much later on.

PATHOLOGIES OF LEARNING

Pask (1976a) has developed what he calls a con-versational theory of learning which describes_how astudent works his way towards a full understandingof a topic by questioning, or trying out his ideason, either a teacher or an 'alter -ego'; another_partof the mind which monitors and interacts with thelearning process. Pask argues that a full under-standing occurs only when the student can_explainthe topic by reconstructing it, and can also demon-strate that understanding by applying the_principleslearned to an entirely new situation; The theoryalso indicates that appropriate analogies are asimportant a part of understanding a 'teach -back' asthe_ recognition of the logical steps and processesthrough which an understanding of the topic is builtup. Pask argues that the two major pathologiescommonly found in learning are the failure to ex-amine the logical structure or the evidence in _

sufficient detail,_and the failure to make use ofappropriate analogies. The link between the holistand serialist strategies and learning pathologies;at Least within Pask's theory, should now becomeclear;

The holist strategy involves looking at thewhole area being learned, taking a broad perspective

25

4

intelleetual Development and Approaches to StUdying

seeking interconnection with o her topics and makinguse of personal and idiosyncrate analogies. _ The

examination of the logical_structure and of thesupporting evidende comes later_when understanding_is demanded-,__but left to himself the hOliSt is like-ly to put off what he may see as the more boring_parts of_learning. Heath describes his category of'plunger' in similar terms:

His thoughts zip from one idea to anotherwithout apparent connection; character-istically (he) failS to clothe his ideas in aframework that would make sense to othertHe may beg permission to go ahead with a pro7

Sect only to lose interest later, particu-larly if hard uninteresting work looms ..."

Pask describes as globetrotting the tendency ofthe holiSt to make inappropriate or_vacuous analo-

gies. This pathology might alS6 take the form of_an

over - readiness to generalize from insufficient eVi-dence_to form hasty, personal judgements;

The serialist falls into the opposite trap.He fails to make use of valid and important_analo-gies and may not build up fbt himself any overallmap to see how the various elements of the topic_interrelate and hoW the topic fits into the subject

area in_general. Pask calls thiS pathologyimprovi-denb.

STYLES OF LEARNING

The strategies of learning described so farmight be no more than reactions to a single task(the Clobbits ) or to a particular piece of_apparatuswhich controls_ learning in a somewhat atypical way.Pask acceptd that his early experiments did arti-ficially accentuate differenCeS between students,but he argues that the holist and serialiststrategies are manifestations of Important under-_lying differences in the way people thihk and tackle_

problems. He argues that some students_are dispoSedto act 'like holiStS' inTheheVer they are given that _

opportunity whereas others behave 'like serialists';The general-tehdengy to adopt a.particular strategyis_referred to as a learhIhg-Style. The 'holist_like' style is called comprehension_learnihg whichinvolves 'building descriptions of what is known'.The 'serialist like' style is called Operationlearning; which is 'the facet of the learning pro-

cess concerned with mastering procedural details'.

26


Pask (personal connunication) has likened these twoAspects of thinking to the way an architect designsA blinding._ _He has to build up the overall plan(description building) and also to work out thedetailed processes, and the logistics of those pro-cesses,_(operation and procedure building) wherebythe plan can be converted into an actual building.Any weakness either_in the plani or in the des-cription of that plan; will prevent the buildingbeing satisfactorily completed (understanding beingreachedI.__

Students who show atiffidient consistent bias intheir learning strategies to be described as 'com-prehension learners' -or 'operation learners' arelikely to show equally consistent_ pathologies oflearning, _But there are other students who arereadily able to adapt their leatning Strategy_to therequirements of the particular task, emphasizingeither_comprehension learning or operation learningas appropriate, and using both in tandem whereverpeaSible. Pask_describes these students as havinga 'versatile' style of learning

"A student who is versatile -is not prone tovacuous glebettetting; he does indeed build updescriptions of what may be known by a rich useof analogical reasoning; bUt subjects thehypotheses to test and operationally verifiesthe validity of an analogy and the limits Ofits applicability" (Patk et Al., 1977, page 68).

Pask's description -seems to echo Heath'S idealtype - the reasonable adventurer. Versatility isalso descriptively related to- "cue - consciousness"(Miller and Parlett; 1k4) and to "theMatization" inlearning.

MATCHING STYLES OF LEARNING AND TEACHING

Perhaps one of the most important Of Patk's ex-perimentS was his investigation of the effects ofmatching_and_mismatching learning materials withstudents' learning strategies. On the basis_of theClObbit experiment students were identified ashaving adopted holist or serialist strategies. Paskthen asked the students to work through a set ofprogrammed learning materials and_take a test todiscover how much they had loarne-th There were twoversions of this material. One version wasdesigned to suit_thebomprehension learner_; beingrich in analogy and illustration. Thb other was

27

44


presented in a Iogicat,_step-by-step_sequence with-

out 'enrichment'. Students were assigned either toa matched or a_mismatched condition (holist withholist material; holist with serialist material;etc). The results_weredramatie, although based on

small Samples; there was little overlap_in thescores of_thematched and mismatched groups. Thestudents in the watched conditions were able toanswer most of the questions about what they hadlearned, whereas the other students generally fellbelow half marks;

Pask's descriptions of style; and pathologiesof learning seem to overlap, in_plaeeS, with Marton'sideaS about deep and surface_ approaches to learning.It was the intriguing possibilities raised -by -these

apparent connections which provided_some Of theinitial impetus for our own research programme. But

our approach was deliberately different. Our mainconcern was to use both quantitative and qualitatiVemethods of collecting and analysing data as a pro-gression from the - earlier research_at Landater; andto explore the effects of natural contextual differ-

ences differences between academic departmentsin their effects on approaches to learning.

This chapterhas described the work of bothMarton_and Pask in detail_as_it is their conceptswhich form the main theoretical basis for our ownwork; and a full understanding of those conceptsseems to be an essential prerequisite_tothe deS-criptiOn of our research design and findings whichfollows.

28

Chapter Three

THE PROGRAMME OF RESEARCH

The main purpose in carrying out thisjprogrammeof research was to extend; conceptually and empiri-cally, the work cf Marton and Pask described in theprevious chapter, in relation to the previous re-search on students carried out at Lancaster. Therewere six main areas within the programme:

1. The measurement of approaches to and stylesof studying, using an inventory.

_2. The_exploration of the cognitive skills;cognitive styles, and personality characteristicsunderlying_different_approaches to studying;

3; The extension of Marton's work on readingacademic articles, using a questionnaire.

_ 4. _ The identification, by questionnaire, ofstudents' perceptions of the academic 'climate' ofdepartments.

5 The use of interviews to investigatestudents' strategies in carrying out particular typesof academic task;

6. An investigation of how contrastingacademic contexts appear to affect the_approaches tostudying adopted by students in those departments.

Marton had_limited his_research methodology toqualitative analyses of small samples of mainlysocial science students. Pask had used_lengthyexperimental learning tasks, again restricted tosmall opportunity samples. The intention in thisresearch programme was to_obtain firmer evidence ofthe existence of contrasting learning styles orapproaches to studying from a wider range of dis-ciplines; and to explore the extent to which theseapproaches represented relatively stable character-istics of students, rooted in_their abilities andpersonality; or in contrast were specific reactions

29dD

The Protamme of Research

to the nature of particular academic tasks or learn-

ing contexts.Methodologically there WAS a deliberate attempt

to capitalise on the strengths of differentapproaches to research. Thus interviews with__students were -used both as a source of items for thedevelopment of inventories and questionnairet, and

as the raw data for__qualitative analyses Data

from inventories were exposed to repeated; complexstatistical_ analyses to explore the nature of the

relationships both between the vatiOUS dimensions ofupproachet to studying, and between approachet tostudying and students'_ perceptions of academic

departments: The patterns of relationthipt emerging

from these quantitative analyses were reassessed_inthe light of students' comments in the interviewsand new items or sub-scales were then_produced for

the inventories. Over a period of four years it

was thUt possible -to make substantial advances inunderstanding_students' approaches to learning_and

to produce carefully constructed instruments forfurther research or evaluation studies in higher

education.The general work on the programme can be des-

cribed in three phases. In the first phase_therewas exploratory_work on five fronts. A question-naire variant Of Marton's interview procedure enreading academic articles was given to three

separate samples; Results from two pilot studiesenabled improvements to be embodied in a question-naire given to 248 first7year students; _secondly,

a pilot version of an inventory to identify dit-tinctive approaches to studying was developed from

an existing Lancaster inventory supplemented withitems suggested by the ideas of Perry; Marton and

Pask Thirdly, exploratory interviews were held in

which students were asked to describe their approachesto specific academic taskt; and more generally_to__ditetitt their experiences of_studying and their per-ceptions of the courses and theteaching they had

encountered. Fourthly, interviews with -staff werecarried eidt to explore the possibility Of defining'academic climate' through lecturers' perceptions ofthe departments in which they worked. This lastapproach was hot pursued; as a focus on students-'

perceptions seemed_to_bemore frUitful with thelimited time and resources available. ThUS thefinal activity in_this phate of theprogramme wasthe development from the interview data of aquestionnaire _to assess quantitatively studentt'peroc.ptions of their courses and their main

30

The Programme of Research

academic department..In the cccond phacc of the programme, the inven-

tory of approaches to studying and the course per-ceptions questionnaire were given to 767 first-yearstudents: Analyses of these data led to finalresearch versions of the inventory and questionnairebeing produced. From_students' responses to theinventory it was possible to identify a group of 60students with extreme scores on approaches tostudying who_agreed to spend some ten hours, spreadover a period of over a yeari taking tests of con-vergent and divergent thinking, cognitive andlearning styles, and personality, and also takingpart in a learning experiment involving the readingof three short articles. The main round of inter-views with students from six contrasting departmentswas also carried out during this phase;

The final phase of the programme involved quali-tative analysis of the interview data, which proveda formidab3e task: Statistical analyses were alsocarried out on the test scores of the 60 volunteers;Finally there was a major survey of 66 universityand_poiytechnic departments throughout Britain.2208 students completed the approaches to studyinginventory_and the course perceptions questionnaire,from which it was possible, in conjunction with theinterview data, to_assess the effects of academicdepartments on students' approaches to learning.

Details of each of these areas of research arepresented in the following chapters. First thereis a report on identifying distinctive approaches tostudying through_the development of the inventory.Chapter 5 describes the extent to which it waspossible to find underlying_ differences in ability,cognitive style or personality between students withcontrasting scores on the inventory. In Chapter 6results of a_series_of learning experiments are pre-sented in which students were asked to read academicarticles, recall what they_had learned, and commenton their reading and learning strategies.

Chapter 7 begins the exploration into theeffects of academic_ context or environment on howstudents learn, with a description of the courseperceptions questionnaire. Chapter 8 is a reporton students experiences of learning and studyingin higher education, while Chapter 9 presents theresults of bringing together the approaches tostudying inventory with the course perceptionsquestionnaire. The final chapter is an_attempt totake stock of the progress made during the programmein trying to understand how students learn. It

31

The Programme of Research

also presents indications of the practical_ utility

of the research in relation to teaching and learning

in higher education.

32

Chapter Four

IDENTIFYING DISTINCTIVE APPROACHES TO STUDYING*

EARLIER RESEARCH At LANCASTER

In earlier research at Lancaster (Entwistle andWilson, 1970; Entwistle and Entwistle, 1970;Entwistle, Thompson and Wilson, 1974; Entwistleand Wilson, 1977) a series of inventories had beendeveloped, initially for the specific purpose of pre-dicting subsequent levels of academic performance.In the main study an inventory with two scales wasused - motivation and study methods 1087 first-year students from seven English universities com-pleted these scales and correlations with subsequentdegree class were calculated; The highest corre-lation reported was 0.39 (study methods in engineer-ing), but overall levels were around 0;20; _ Althoughthese values seem low, it must be remembered thatthey are about the same as correlations between 'A'levels and degree class. _

one of the versions of the inventory containeditems indicative of extraversion and neuroticism(Eysenck, 1970); _ In higher education it has beenconsistently found that introverts in most subjectareas tend to be more successful than_extraverts, _

but an_interesting study by Wilson, (1969; Entwistleand Wilson, 1977) showed that extraverts who hadhigh scores on motivation and study methods wereequally successful as introverts with comparablescores. However few extravertsi compared with_in-troverts, had high motivation or good study methods -

* Much of the work on the_first two versions of theinventory was carried out by Maureen Hanley (nde Robin-son). Later versions were developed in association_with Sarah Morison (nde Burkinshaw), Dai Hounsell andPatrick Thomas.

33

Identifying Distinctive Approaches to Studying

hence the overall relationship between introversionand degree class. Although this earlier work wasnot designed to examine study processes, neverthe-less it did indicate that students of differingpersonality types might approach studying_in con-trasting_ ways. This possibility was exploredfurther by the use of clUster_analysis, whichidentifies students with similar profiles of_scores;

This method was used to define groups ofsuccessful students who seemed to have followeddifferent paths to success. Three successfulgroups and one which was_unsuccessful were described(Entwistle and Wilson, 1977) The fir:;t_aroup_wasoutstandingly successful and was apparently motivatedby ambition or 'hope for success' (Atkinson andFeather; 1966).

"Cluster 1 contained students with high !A'level grades who were satisfied with theircourses. These students had not had a particu-larly active social or sporting life; nor hadthey concentrated on developing aestheticinterests ... They were highly motivated and hadgood_study methods. In personality they wereemotionally stable and_had high scores ontheoretical and economic valUes, linked with atendency_ towards toughminded conservatism.This coMbination of characteristics suggests arather cold and ruthless individual, governedby rationality and spurred on by competition torepeated demonstrations of intellectual mastery."

The second group was in many ways the oppositeof the first, yet_students still obtained fairlygood degree results;

The main defining features ... were high scoreson neuroticism and syllabus-boundness, and lowscores on both extraversion, (study methods)and motivation. Their self-ratings were uni-formly negative. They_saw themselves asneither likeable nor self-confident. They hadno active social life and few aestheticinterests; (they worked long hours) ... It istempting to see these students as motivated by'fear of failure'__(Birney, Burdick, and Teevan,1969)... The possibility that neurotic_intro7- _

verts with_low motivation and poor study methodsmight (still) be almost as successful as highlymotivated students was noted in a preliminaryanalysis of the interview data. (Entwistle,

34


Thompson; and WUson, 1974)" (Pp. cit, page 130).

The third group of students success-fUl. It contained mainly arts and humanitiesstudents with high aesthetic_and_lo0 economicvalues who espoused radical ideals. They werehighly motivated, had good study methods;. workedlong hours, but were distinctly syllabus-free intheir attitudes to studying.

The final group contained_the least successfulstudents; This group had active social or sportinginterests combined with very low motivation, poorstudy methods, and_few hours spent studying. Some,but by no means all of the students, came touniversity with poor 'A' level grades and had lowscores on_a verbal- aptitude test.

Another way of drawing attention to differingattitudes to studying was to use factor analyses toidentify groups of items which were closely inter-related. In this way the initial two dimensionsof motivation and_studv methods were broken down intofive sub-scales which paralleled the cluster analyses,but produced two factors associated_ with poor degreeresults; The five factors were labelled competitiveand efficient, fear of failurei syllabus-free,cynical and disenchanted; and disorganized anddilatory. The fbur most distinctive items from eachfactor are shown in Table_4.1i_and these items formedthe first cart of the pool of items used to developthe 'Approaches to Studying Inventory' for thisresearch programme.

DEVELOPMENT OF PILOT INVENTORIES

The purpose in developing a new inventory wasnot to improve levels of prediction of academicsuccess; it was instead an attempt to understandstudents' approaches to learning. In particular,_the intention was to_ measure; and to investigate theinter - relationships between, the explanatory con-cepts identified by Marton and Pask. Thusadditional items were written which were based onMarton's descriptions of 'deep' and 'surface' pro-cessing and on Pask's indications of -the varyinglearning strategies used by 'holists' and 'serialists'.In addition the ideas of Miller and Parlett (1974) on'cue consciousnessli_as modified by Ramsden (1979)into a more general dimension of 'strategicapproach to assessment', created an additional set ofitems. _

As the interviews with students progressed

35


(see Chaptoi 6) additional items were suggested.Lventually a pool of 120 items was used in the firstpilot inventory. Alpha factor analysis withrotation to oblique simple structure (Nie et al,1975) was used to identify groups of items whichwere consistently linked together. The items werealso subjected to conceptual analysis in relation tothe constructs found in the literature. It was soonclear that the 'deep approach to studying' and'organized; motivated study methods' were majordimensions, and that a third factor - brought togethersurface processing with fear of failure and syllabus-boundness.

Table 4.I STUDENTS' ATTITUDES TO STUDYING

DISORGANIZED AN!) DILATORY (Poor degree results)

My habit of putting off work leaveS me with far too much todo at the end of term.

I'm rather slow at starting work in the evening.

IL's rather difficult for me to organise my study time: at

school this was done for me.

It is unusual for me to be late handing in work (Disagree).

CYNICAL AND DISENCHANTED (Poor degree results)

I can't see any relevance to most of the work we do here.

There seems to be little point in following up the referenceswe are given in lectures.

There are very few of the recommended text -books which areically worth buying:

I sometimes wish I had gone straight into work after school.

SYTI,ABUS-FREE (Above average degree results)

I tend to learn more effectively by studying along my own linesthan through set work.

I am often involved in following up my own ideas when I amsupposed to be doing set work.

Often I try_to think of a better way of doing something thanis described in a lecture or hook.

I should prefer the set work to be less structured and organised.

36

Identifying Distinctive Approaches to studying

Table 4.1 STUDENTS' ATTITUDES TO STUDYING (continued)

FEAR OF FAILURE (Ali-aye average degree results)

My friends always seem co be able to de things better than me.

Worrying about an exam or about work which is overdue oftenprevents me from steeping.

1 get Very concerned about work which is overdue.

I don't often join in tutorial discussions: I prefer toliSten.

COMPETITIVE AND EFFICIENT (Very good degree results)

I play any game to win; not just for the fun of it.

I hate admitting defeat, even in trivial matters.

AC'S iiiiportan' for me to do really well in the courses here.

consider the best possible way of learning is by completingthe set work and doing the required reading.

At this stage it was possible to discuss ourfactor analyses with John Biggs of Newcastle,Australia. He had been developing a Study BehaviourQuestionnaire (Biggs, 1976) which contained the tensub-scales shown below.

Academic aspiration

Academic interest

Academic neurocicism

Internality

Pragmatic, gradeorientated,university as means.

Intrinsically motivated, studyas end.

Confused, overwhelmed bydemands of course work.

Sees 'truth' coming from within,not (from) external authority.

Study skills and organisation Works Ponsistently, reviews

Fact rote strategy

Dependence

Meaning Assimilation

regularly, schedules work.

Centres on facts, details, rotelearns.

Rarely questions instructors,tests; needs support.

Reads Widely, relates to known,meaning orientated.

37

Identifying DiStinctive Approaches to Studying

Te_st. .inxiety Very concerned about tests;exams, fear of failure.

Opennesti (Believes) university (is)place where valupc a-p qupstion-ed.

(Biggs, 1976; page 72).

The similarity between these scales and severalof the dimensions described by our own inventory wasstriking; even_the wording of many of the itemswas Similar. Biggs indicated -that his most recentwork strongly suggested the existence of three mainfactors -- utilizing; internalizing, and achieVing -each of which contained both a cognitive -and amotivational component as follows. (Subsequentlydescribed in Biggs 1979):

Factor Cognitive

Utilizing Fact-rote strategy

Internalizing

AChieVing

Meaning assimilation

Study- skills andorganisation

MotivatiohdI

ExtrinsiC, feat OffailureIntrinsit

Need for achievement

The descriptions of these_three fact-Ors weresimilar to the ones emerging_ from the_pilotNrsionof our inventory.____It was therefore decided tobring the inventories even closer together by intro-ducing additional items covering scales used by_Biggs but not parelled_in_our inventory - intrinsicmotivation, extrinsic motivation, internality andopenness. The second pilot inventory contained the82 items from the first inventory_most_clearlyrelated to established factors, together with 24items rewritten from the four scales developed byBiggs.

Table 4.2 lists the fifteen sub-scales includedin this version of the inventory,_and_the EdUrfactors which emerged from the analysis. Factoranalysis allows us to group variables together whichhaVe elements of similarity in their inter7relation-ships. Thus factors are 'global' dimensionssummarizing the individual scales which hang

38


together most c lose ly. The meaning of a factor canbe deduced from the defining items of the scaleswhich have the highest factor loadings on that factor.A negative sign indicates that the direction has tobe reversed (for example;_ Factor I is associatedwith the Luveibe of syllaLus boundncso, vihich issyllabus freedom).

Table 4.2 FACTOR LOADINGS OF STUDY STRATEGY SCALES

Sub-scales I II III IV

Deep approach 62Comprehension learningIntrinsic motivation 54Internality 61Openness 50

Surface approach 67Operation learning 67Extrinsic motivation 61Fear of failure 36Syllabus bound -41 50

33

47

Strategic approach 41Organized study methods 64Achievement motivation 36 45Disillusioned attitudes -55Sociability

-32

58

The second pilot inventory was given to 767first year (second term) students from ninedepartments in two universities. The disciplinescovered were english, history, psychology, physics,and engineering. Principal_ component factoranalyses, with rotation to oblique simple structure,were used to investigate the inter - relationshipsbetween the sub- scales: Four factors had eigen-values above unity and these explained 56% of theoverall variance in the correlational matrix;Factor loadings are shown in Table 4.2.

The four factors can be described as follows.

390


I DEEP APPRoACH/COMPREHENSION LEARNING OR MEANINGORIENTATION

This factor is very close to Biggs' 'internali-zing'. It carries the same emphasis on intrinsicmotivation and active search_for_personal meaning;but it coutaiu ila highest Iblding on comprehensionlearning. This factor may thus be considered tocontain a stylistic component in addition to thoseelements identified by Biggs.

LI SURFACE APPROACH/OPERATION LEARNING OR REPRO-DUCING ORIENTATION

This/shows a close similarity to thefactor. it shows high loadings on surface levelapproach and also on extrinsic motivation, syllabus-boundness and feat of failure. But again the highloading on operation learning could imply anadditional stylistic component.

III ORGANIZED STUDY METHODS AND ACHIEVING ORIENTATION

This is the 'achieving' factor; with highpositive loadings on organized study methoas andaChicivoment motivation; -and a high negative loadingon disillusioned attitudes. There are also signi-ficant loadings on both deep approach and intrinsicmotivation without any hint of a stylistic componentin this case.

IV STABLE EXTRAVERSION

The final factor appears to be a combination__ ofthe two most basic personality traits described byEysenck (1970). A similar factor was reportedearlier in work on primary school chgldren wherescales of both motivation and personality wereincluded (Entwistle and Bennett; 1973). It isessentially stable extraversion.

This analysis appeared to support the claim byBiggs that three second order factors "seem to offera parsimonious and theoretically coherent model forconceptualizing the_ more important ways in whichstudents may feel about, and behave towards; theirstudy" (Biggs; 1979, p. 383).

As the subscales of internality and opennessseemed to add little to the definition of the f.rstfactOr, they Were dropped from subsequent versions of

40

5-i


the inventory. Thu isolated personality dimensionof sociability was also dropped. In their place,it was decided to introduce sub-components of themain explanatory concepts_being_investigated; Inthe third pilot version of the inventory a distinct-ion was made within approach to studying between theintentioni_the process, and the outcome. Also thestvlos of learning, comprehension learning andoperation learning; both of_which Pask considers tobe essential in reaching understanding, were dis-tinguished from their corresponding_pathologies _

globetrotting and improvidence; Holists are likelyto exhibit both comprehension learning and globe-trotting; serialists should score highly on _

operation learning and improvidence. But studentsadopting a deep approach, although being able to useboth comprehension and operation learning in a ver-satile manner, would not be expected to exhibit thepathologies of learning.

One of the problems in developing the inventoryhas been that the main theoretical constructsidentified by Marton and Pask have been evolvingduring the life of the programme, partly throughnew publications by the originators, partly through_seminars at which thc_ideas_have been discussed withother researchers, and partly through the findingsfrom our own inventories and interviews. _Thus thethird pilot_inventory had a short life. Shortlyaft-et it had been used, an article based on theprevious version of the inventory was written(Entwistle, Hanley, and Hounsell, 1979). In thisarticle a model of student learning was_developedwhich attempted to distinguish between deep/surfaceapproaches and comprehension/operation learning.This model also distinguished two stages of both com-prehension and operation learning in the way shownin Figure 4.1.

In the final research version of the inventoryit was thus decided to restrict 'deep approach' tothe intention to understand and_an active, criticalapproach to_learning, and to add as separate sub-scale two of the components essential to a deep-level outcome:, but not previously covered in theinventory: These sub- scales were labelled'relating ideas' and 'use of evidence'.

FINAL RESEARCH VERSION OF THE INVENTORY

In deciding the items to be included in thefinal research version of the inventory all theprevious inventories were reviewed to identify items

41

8

Figure 4,1 A MODEL OF STYLES AND APPROACHES TO LEARNING

......... yo. .., .1m-4nh, ,y,a

Approach or Style

vr.ww.r.....................g...i.4.~.................

Process

....M.9Mw.

Outcome

....____........----------

Stage I Stage II

Deep approach'

protilo

All four processes below

reach understanding

used appropriately to Deep level of

urderstanding

Comprehension

learning

Building overal des-

cripton of content

area

Reorganizing incoming

information to relate to

previous knovledge or

experience and establish-

ing personal meaning

Incomplete under-

standing attributable

to OobetrOtting

Operation

learning

Detailed attention

to evidence nd

steps in the

argument

Relating evidence to

conclusion and main-

taming a critical,

objective stance

Incomplete under-

standing attributable

to improvidence

Surface

approach

Memorization Overlearning Surface level of

understanding

61/


which had worked well at some stage within one orother of the sub-scales now to be forme:. Eachsub-scale, with the exception of surfac- '..-proachwhich had proved the most difficult to c,'ne, wasliMited to a maximum of four items to en.ure amanageable overall length on the_basis of_the high-est correlations between item and sub-scale total,consistent with retaining the conceptual definitionof the subscales; - A list of sub-scales and-dofihitig it-omF iq 11(7)wn in Table Al (Appendix)together with the coefficients of- internal consis-tency (Cronbach alpha). The coefficients for themain domains were as follows: meaning orientation(16 items=0.79)1 reproducing orientation (16itemsK=0.73); achieving orientation (16 items=0.70); styles and pathologies (16 items00=0;59);Although the levels of internal consistency arerather low in some of the sub-scales, the reliabilityestimates for three of the four domains are satis-tactory. And there is a good reason for the lowerreliability in the fourth domain. It is unlikelythat styles, and pathologies can be viewed as a singledomain. The sub-scales could well be put togetherin different ways for different_purposes; The totalscore (with one style and pathology reversed) mayindicate an extreme 'redundant holist' says bu, itmay he more meaningful to use comprehension loarningand globetrotting together to indicate a holiststyle; operation learning and improvidence togetherto Indicate a serialist style; comprehension andoperation learning together to indicate versatility;and globetrotting and improvidence to indicatepathologies of learning.

MAIN STUDY

The inventory was presented_to students _as partof a questionnaire in three sections. The firstsection asked for background information about_ _

school examination results and honours specialism(s),and also contained a self-rating question in whichstudents were asked to assess their_ own academicprogress to date (How well do you think you are doingso far on this subject/course, compared with otherstudents?). A similar approach to self-assessmentof mathematical aptitude proved successful in anearlier study (Entwistle and Wilson, 1977)i with a

43


correlation between self-rating and objective teEtscore of +0.65. The second section contained theinventory of approaches to studying; while the finalsection was the Course Perceptions Questionnaire thedevelopment of which is described in Chapter 7. Aletter descrJbinq the purpose of_the_investigationwas sent to 171 departments in 54 universities andpolytechnics.in Englandi_ Wales; Scotland and NorthernIreland. Ninety-five departments agreed in principleto cooperatei and an adequate proportion of completedqueLionnaiies for anlaysis wa9 event-nallv obtainedfrom 66 of them.

The target _population was second-year under-graduates (third-year in Scotland) taking honours _

degrees in departments of English, history, economics,psychology, physics or engineering, The six dis-ciplines were chosen to provide a range of special-isms: _five of them had been used previously in theinLerviow study (Ramsden, 1979).

Completed questionnaires were obtained from2208 students, an- estimated. response rate of 73 percent. (Returns from departments showed the classsize; -but it was not always possible to be sureexactly how many of the class had received_the_questionnaire). Students were asked to give theirnames (to allow degree results to be obtained_sub7_sequently), but they returned the questionnaires tothe investigators in- sealed envelopes, with aguarantee that departmental_staff_wouIdnot see_their responses. The final sample contained 16arts departments (491_students)i 26 in the socialsciences (852), and 24 the pure and appliedsciences (865).

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN APPROACHES TO STUDYING ANDACADEMIC PROGRESS

Although the current inventory was not designedprimarily to predict academic performance,_it isstill of interest to examine the relationshipsbetween approaches to studying and academic progress.In this study it was only possible to investigatecorrelations_ between the inventory sub-scales andthe self-rating of academic progress in the secondyoari but results using the second pilot inventoryare available in relation to formal first-yearassessment grades. It has alSo been possible tocompare our self-rating correlations with samplesof AusLialian first-year students who had been

44

Gi


given the final reneareh version of the inventory.*Table 4.3 presents correlations for the British andAustralian samples.

The correlations with the British students'self-rating of academic progress by subject area;in Table 4;3; showed consistent relationships in theexpected directions. The closest overall relation-ships with academic progress were_found withorganized study methods and positive attitudes tostudying, followed by intrinsic motivation, deepapproach; and_syllabus-freedom (changing the names toindicate the direction of relationship). Subjectarea differences show academic progress in arts_to bemore closely related positively to deep approach andcomprehension learning, and negatively to all the sub-scales within the reproducing orientation and tooperation learning and improvidence. In socialscience, higher positive correlations are found withrelating ideas; intrinsic motivation, and highernegative correlations with disorganized study methodsand negative attitudes. _ Social scientists appear tobe less heavily penalized for the pathologies' oflearning or adopting a surface approach. __The_relationships in science follow the overall valuesfairly closely with the exception of strategicapproach and_disorganized study methods which showcloser relationships with progress, and operationlearning which seems to be more of a benefit in thesciences;

The Australian samples showed lower levels ofcorrelation overall; which_could be explained eitherby the objectivity of the index of academic perfor-mance (thus avoiding the possible circularity incomparing two sets of self-ratings), or by thedifference between first and second-year students.The pattern of relationships was; however, verysimilar; the only exceptions being that theAustralian scientists showed a negative relationshipwith operation learning, and that improvidence wasmore heavily penalized in sciences than in the arts.

A useful way of determining_which sub-scalespredict academic progress most effectively is dis-criminant function analysis. In this statisticaltechnique; groups are formed on the basis of acriterion (here academic performance). Theanalysis then identifies a discriminant function

* We are grateful to David Watkins of the AustralianNational University in Canberra for allowing us topresent his findings;

45

62

HI

A Table 4.1 CORRFLATIONSBETWEENAPPROACHES TO STUDYING AND INDICES OF ACADEMIC PROGRESS IN

C"BRITAIN AND AUSTRALIA_ 0

it...........__________________..1-4

Arts Social Sci. Science Britishl<

H.

0Brit Aus 4it Aus Brit Aus Total. 4

(491) (295) (852) (89) (865) (156) (2208)0,........_.ki..

mit-tiv1 3v.di,; 15 - 10 24

i±

.'h2co;:ilij (11:o:f.,.:('):Hi

NO Approach 30 11 23 11 21 15 24 art

Relating Ideas 07 07 19 12 10 -08 1 Hs

UH Of Evidaa 16 01 17 12 13 02 154

0

Intrinsic Motivation 26 21 31 16 24 13 26

1;,),..ppoking dimit,io4

Surface Approach -2? -22 -13 -27 -20 -23 -19'd

Syllabyrboundness -34 -17 -24 -06 -14 -07 -22 0

Fear_oflailure . -25 -10 -15 -14 -15 -1: -180

Pr

Extrinsic Motivation -13 -22 -09 -01 -06 -04 -09

.,1 ohl:( vi r.lg .u)(mtAiti,on m

Strategic Approach 09 02 20 03 21 00 19rt

pisorganize0 Study Methods -22 -18 -34 -21 -37 -34 -320

Negative Attitudes to Studying -26 -25 -33 -23 -30 -30 -29 cn

0Achievement Motivation 16 04 25 18 20 28 20

StylaJKI Putholqies41

k<

Comprehension Learning 15 03 08 16 05 00 08 H.

Globetrotting -18 -25 -11 -03 -1. -19.0

;4

Operation Learning -16 -09 -03 -03 06 -12 -04

improvidence .-3 -10 -06 -18 -17 -27 -15

Significant for 1.1) ;12 .15 ;09 .27 .09 ,21 .06

Multiple CoPadtion - ,41 - X - ;54


which_ shows which combination of the predictivevariables (sub-scales of the_ inventory) most clearlydifferentiates between the different criteriongroups. Using this technique on data from thesecond pilot study (11=-- 767 first-years with acriterion of assessment grades), the differences be-tween the contrasting achievement groups wereassociated most closely with globetrotting, dis-organized studying, extrinsic and intrinsic moti-vation, and to a lesser_extent_improvidence(Entwistle, Hanley and Hounsell, 1979) -

In the main study (Ramsden and Entwistle; _1981),two extreme groups were formed =n -terms of studentswhosaid they were doing 'very well' in their courses(N=58) and those who said they were performing'badly' (N=43). The sub-scales which defined thediscriminant function most clearly were organizedstudy_methods, positive attitudes to studying; astrategic approach, and (to a lesser extent) highscores on achievement motivation and deep approach,combined, with low scores on surface approach andglobetrotting. This function places studentscorrectly i.i their achievement category In_90% ofinstances:_ Of course, this level of prediction islikely to be an overestimate, due to the circularityinvolved in_using_seIE-ratings of both progress andapproaches to studying. In the pilot study, withan objective criter.lon but a first -year sample, thelevel_ofcorrect prediction was 83% in the low groupand 75% In the high group.

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN APPROACHES TO STUDYING

One of the main purposes of this part of the pro-gramme was to investigate_ the inter-relationshipsbetween the explanatoryconstructs measured by theinventory (The correlations between the sub-scalescan be found in Appendix Table A2). The inter-relationships between the sub-scales of the inventoryfollow the patterns anticipated. Each of_the_ threemain domains shows fairly close inter-relationshipsbetween the sub-scales. Even the fourth dimension,styles and pathologies, chows a reasonable consis-tency - five out of the six correlations are positivein the hoist direction. The_only exception wasmentioned earlier. There is -a_ positive relation-ship between globetrotting and improvidence, indi-cating that these pathologies are_more closely linkedwith each other than with the stylistic component,which would have produced a negative_correlation.Although it may be difficult at first sight to

47

64


understand how apparently opposite pathologiescould be associated in this way, interview commentsfrom soma of the weaker students showed how thismight occur. For example, one student said

"I think it tends to be the case that T getbogged down in detail. I'm sure that's thecase - I mean it explains why I'm so long-winded about any work that I do. I.reallyu,n't find it easy_to pick out the skeletalargument and just be satisfied with that ...When I'm reading to find out about a particulartopic I tend to be a bit specific initially,but I do find that I get misled very easily_and as soon as_another area comes un which isperhaps not quite to do with the topic_...but has interesting connections, then I go off

on tangents. Very_regularly I end up sort of(laughs),miles away from where I originallystarted";

Meaning orientation was consistently relattdpositively to the sub-scales of achieving orientation.It was also related strongly to comprehension_IeLun-ing (ag in previous analyses)i but not to globe-trotting, hence justifying the separation of stylefrom pathology in the inventory. Reproducingorientation was positively_ related to serialist styleani pathology and also to both disorganized studymethods and negative attitudes. In this domain,however, individual sub - scales behave less coherently,For example; surface approach and fear of failureshow higher relationships with the pathologies oflearningi while surface approach and extrinsic moti-vation are positively related to both strategicapproach and achievement motivation.

_Factor analysis allows overall patterns of _

relationships to be seen more clearly. Thus, theSPSS program was used to carry out principal factoranalysesi followed by rotation to oblique simplestructure. Four factors had eigenvalues greaterthan one and_ they accounted for 55 per cent of the _

variance. The factor loadings are shown in Table 4.4The first two fadtors were almost identical to

those_ previously described as meaning orientation andreprOducing orientation; Again_both factors showeda strong stylistic component. However, meaningorientation, as opposed to reproducing orientation,contained no element Of pathology in its loadings.The previous_third factor of achieving orientationwas divided into two. Factor III had its highest

48


loading on disorganized study methods and negativeattitudes to studying; a factor similar to thatwhich had emerged from the earlier inventory ofmotivation and study methods (Entwistle; 1975);This factor which can be seen as a non- academicorientation to studying, represents-. disorganised anddilatory approaches to studying. Factor IV wascloser to the previous achieving orientation withhighloadings_on strategic approach_and both extrin-sic and achievement motivation Th-etb was also anapparent readiness to adopt either deep or surfaceapproaches; which is_consistent with a previousfinding (Entwistle; Hataby and Hounsell, 19791 thatstudentswithanachieving orientation_will seekhigh grades; using meaningful or rote learning,whichever seems to produce the best results.

Table 4.4 FACTOR ANALYSIS OF APPROACHES TO STUDYING SCALES(N-2208)

VariablesFactors

IV

Academic PerformanLe

School (-02) (-13) (-151 (-07)Higher Education 31 -26 -39 (19)

Approaches to Studying

(DA) Deep Approach 70 (22)(RI) Inter-relating Ideas 65(CE) Use 0Z Evidence _ 54 (23)(IN) Intrinsic Motivation 72 -25

(s \) Surface Approach 57 36 30(SD) Syllabos-boundness -41 58 (24)(FF) Fear of Failure 50 34(EM) Extrinsic MOtiVdEfOft -25 38 53

(ST) Strategic Approach 29 48(uS) Disorganized_Study Methods ...25 50(NA) Negative Attitudes to S-tii6riii -39 52(AM) Achievement Motivation (24) 45

(CL) COmpreuension Learning 55 (-24) 30(CL) Globetrotting 52(OIL) Operation Learning 62 44(II') hnprovidence 68 (24) 26

Decimal points and most loadings less than .25 omitted.

49


Factor LI1 (non-academic Orientation) shows _thehighest (negative) loading on self-rating of acaddMitprogress. As expected, meaning orientation ispositively related to achievement, while the repro-dliirig Orientation shows i negative relationship._:;iii:prisingly, the aChioVihg Orientation itself showsonly a slight association with the self-rating ofacademie progro88. However, all these relationshipswill have to be re-examined subsequently, with aMore satisfactory criterion of achievement (degreeclass) .

FURTHER DEVELOPMENT WORK ON THE INVENTORY

The publication of an article describing resultsfrOM the second pilot inventory (Entwistle; Hanleyand Hounsell, 1979) created considerable interestamong other researchers working in this field. Asa result the final research version of the inventoryhas been used either in its original form or in aSlightly amended form in studies at the OpenUniversity (Morgan, GibbS and Taylor; 1980)i_at theAustralian National University (Watkins, 1982) andis about to be used in Holland and Belgium (VanRossum, personal communication).

Ih the Open University study; meaning_orien-tation emerged as clearly as in our own analyses;but there was overlap between reproducing orientation,achieVing Orientation and styles and pathologies.The reproducing factor did not haVe significantloadings on extrinsic motivation; It did haVeloadings, not just on operation learning, but alsoon the two pathologies, and on diSbrganited studyingand negative attitudes. The third factor linkedtogether extrinsic and achievement motivation, whilethe fourth factor was not consistent in the tWbsamples used.

As a result of our own factor anaIyses_andthose from the Open Universityi_ it was decided to

carry out a reassessment of our sub-scales. Theseparation into sixteen sub-scaleS was designed tokeep each dimension conceptually- distinctL theseparation could not be justified on the basis ofempirical relationships. The later factor analysesMade it imperative to see to what extent the_current_grouping of items, either Within sub -soles or withinfour domains, could still be justified empirically.Thus alpha factor analysis -was applied to data from__the main study (N=2208) and 17 faCtbr8 were extracted(to allow for 16 factors and the freedom to

506.1

Identifying Distinctive Approaches to StUdying

rotate created by on additional factor) . Also afive-factor solution was produced to examine member-ship of domains, and repeated for each of the sixdisciplines separately. The 17 factor solutionproduced_few identifiable-groupings of items, soTable 4.5 summarises the factors from the 5 factorsolutions.

Again the two main orientations were clear-cutand identifiable in every discipline; being meaningorientation and r,sproducing orientation. Theclarity of the interpretation was blurred somewhatwhere a separate___ style factor was created (historyund_physics); Then the meaning orientation couldbe better described as 'deep approach out ofinterest', while the reproducing orientation; withoperation learning removed, was more identifiablewith a surface; instrumental approach. Conceptuallyit was,this distinction which had been expected.Operation learning, with its emphasis on a cautious;Logical; controlled; approach closely reliant onfact and detail, should not necessarily become asurface instrumental strategy. It was thus re-assuring to find some empirical support for thisdistinction:

The third main factor again differed from theachieving orientation described previously. Pre-viously it was found that disorganized study methodsand negative attitudes were linked; while achievementmotivation was associated with both strategicapproach and extrinsic motivation. ln_these analysesthe_first two held together in most analyses, but;oUld be separated into distinct factors. Themotivational sub-scales could also be found asdistinct factors, but more typically they weregrouped in the ways shown in Table 4.5. An examin-ation of these,_ together with earlier analyses,suggests that the 'non - academic' groupings containtwo components - the rejection of academic_ valuesand; in some students, an endorsement of alternativegoals - social, aesthetic or sporting. It maythus be necessary to describe motivation in termsof four distinct sub-scales: achievement, extrinsic,intrinsic and social. Again in some analyses'academic motivation!, the combination of achieve-ment motivation and intrinsic motivation, was alsorelated to strategic approach._ This combinationwas commonly associated with elements of both deepand surface approaches - thus describing theseparate !achieving orientation' found previously.

It thus seems that there are perhaps fourdistinctive orientations to studying which can be

51

3

H

0i 1 "gib le ;5SUMMARY OF ITEM FACTOR ANALYSES

0

....._w,

tt

groupings of English History Economics Psychology Physics Engineer- Total M.

56-Scaleging Sample

P

(N=282) (209) (450) (402) (357) (508) (2208)

014.

-----------------.._.Meaning Orientation

0il

(DA + (1,.+ RI + UE)X X X

14'

(also IN) . .

0

0

Reproducing Orientation

rt

H.

(SA + Ip.+ FF + Sli)

<

(also OL) X X XX

"X

Non-Academic Orientation X ti X X X X X1

(DS + NA + a)(two (two tt

(also -IX and -AM)factors)

factors) 0

;LI

HOiiC Sty/e

0

7

(CL + CL)X X 0

o

Sortalist Stylen

(01, + 1M)X

0

Andomic Motivation(t

WI + IN) X X X

instrumental Motovation

(AM + EN)X

X1-!'

0

on-AcdemicNotivation

4

0 f CA - IN) X X X

score Iii subscale (10)


identified ompirica11y from the inventory and thatthese orientations are associated with character-iStit fotMs of motivation, as Biggs has suggested:

Orientation Motivation

Moaning orientation(DA + CL + RI + FE)

Reproducing Orientation(SA + IF + FF + SB)

AChieVing Orientation+ 1M + ST)

Von Academic Orientation(DA + NA +

Intrinsic('M)

Lxtrinsic and/or Fear-f Failure (EM)

hievement

Low levels of intrinsiccombined with high extrinsic and/or socialmotivation

These orientations correlated with acadeMiC progressas_shown in Table 4.6. Consistently_ the highestValuesare_shownwith the nonr.academic and- achievingorientations; There is a subject area differenceshowing Meaning orientation to be more effective_and-_ reproducing orientation (and serialiSt tobe more heavily penalized in arts than science.Thehblist style_is unrelated to achievement in anydiscipline, as is the serialiSt style in science andsocial science.

parallel to these analyses of the finalresearch -torsion, work has also been progressing_With a much shorter inventory of 30 items. Thiswas devised_initially for use in a book (Entwistle,1981) to illUStrate the type of scales available.For this purpose some of the items were slightlyaltered -to make it appropriate for sixth-formers(16 18 year Olds). The availability of this -

version of the inventory has allowed a pilot study*to be carried out in one school with a small sampleOf 51 pupils_taking 'A' level (18_+) examinations.Table 4.7 shows the mean scores of pupils with thehighest and lowest 'A' level performance on theshortened scales.

* We are grateful to -Sean O'ConaiII of Loretto SCheblin Coleraine for collecting these data.

53

H

VI

rt

tt

Table 4,6 CORREIATIoNS BETWEEN STUDY ORIENTATION A00 SELF-RATING OF ACADEMIC PROGRESS

held.74.0...V.

English liktory Economics Psychology Physics Engineering

Orientation/Style (N:282) (209) (450) (402) (357) (508)

0

H.

(1)

rf

H.

n

Meaning 23 21 24 20 17 14 H.

0_

<

Reproducing -39 -35 -24 -14 -26 -23 0

Athiuitig 27 24 38 38 40 28 t)

pd

Non-Academic -36.')--, -39 -37 -44 -40 li

0

0

0

Mist -02 01 -02 -00 -08 -06to

Serialist -23 -23 -06 -02 -06 -09 rt0

6liumw ..way+.1.mM.01, .

H.

Decimal points omitt2


Table 4.7 MEAN SCORES OF FMCS 11TH HIGH OR LOW-'A' LEVELGRADES ON SHORT APPROACHES TO STUDYING INVENTORY

Orientation /StyleScience Arts

High Low High Low(N=5) (7) (11) (8)

Meaning Orientation 15.4 12.4 14.8 11.8Reproducing Orientation 15.0 12.9 14.0 16.4Achievii% Orientation 15.2 12.4 14.4 6.6

Holist Style 13.0 11.9 14.1 13.0

Serialise Style 16.6 12.4 13.1 14.6

It was encouraging to find, even in this smallsample and using a much abbreviated invento--, apattern of results similar to those found hstudents. Of particular interest was a_suggestionthat reproducing orientation and improvidence areassociated with success in science and with poorperformance in arts;

lt is hoped that a schools version of thepublished inventory will be produced and that in bothschools and higher education, the results can beused for diagnostic purposes. Linking this _

inventory to schemes for teaching study skills inschools and in higher education, (for example,Tabberer and Allmani 1981; Gibbs, 1981) it is anti-cipated that students could be helped to developappropriate skills and to become more conscious_inusing those skills strategically to improve theirlevels of academic performance. Such implicationsOf the findings of our research will be discussedmore fully in the final chapter;

55

Chapter Five

PERSONALITY AND COGNITIVE STYLE IN STUDYING

(Written in collaboration with Sarah Morison)

By now we have been able to establish clearlyfrom the inventory data that students adopt distinc-tive approaches to studying_- the -most insistentcontrast being between meaning and reproducingorientations_. The question posed in this chapteris whether thete approaches can be interpreted_interms of more fundamental psychological processes..The initial review sections introduce theories andpsychological tests WhiCh were incorporated into thestudy reported in the second half of the chapter.

LEVELS OF PROCESSING IN THE MEMORY

Martc.-. referred to deep level _and:surface ievoi processingi_and the idPa of differentlevels of proceSaind is already well established inthe psychological literature on human memory andinfOrMatiOn processing; Models_of_human memoryhave described generally three diStinCt types ofmemory - a sensory register (which holds ircomingperceptions only briefly); a short -term memory (STMwhich holds a limited amount of infOrMatiOn for up

to about 20 seconds)i_and a long-term memory (LTM)_

which itself can be divided into episodic (storingepisodes of experience) and semantic (Storing andrelating concepts).

Informatimi can be held in store for longer_periods by internal- repetition (rehearsal) and-ifrepeated sufficiently often (overlearning) it willbecome a permanent memory trace, presumably in

The early part -of this chapter contains_ extracts fromEntwistle (1981); Styles of Learning and_Teaching,More detailed descriptins of the psychblogidlliterature will by found there in Chapters 7, 9 and 10.

56 7o

Personality and Cognitive Style in Studying

episodic LTM. This process is what would normallybe called rote memorization or surface level pro-cessing. But much incoming information is reasses-sed and categorized in STM before_being passed tosemantic_LTM. This process is what is involvedin deep level processing.

It comes initially. as a contradiction of every-day experience to hear that we have a memory whichis essentially unlimited in size and in which memoriesremain almost indefinitely. The apparent paradoxvanishes when we realize that the ideas which go inmay not necessarily come out _Retrieval from memorydepends on the accuracy of a eedIng-process whichdetermines where the incoming information_ will be_stored, and hence where it is expected subsequentlyto be found.

The long-term memory has-been compared to alibraryi_to setsof_pigeon-holes and to a filingsystem (Broadbent, 1966). It contains what_Lindsayand Norman (1972) call a data base of concepts andrecords of events tied together within inter-connect-ing systems. Each individual has a unique concept-ual structure, although the linkages between concepts(which constitute definitions) have enough in -commonto allow effective communication of ideas; Conceptsarc built up by repeated comparisons of incomingpeiceptions or information with ore- existing conceptsor linkages_ between images (for example, the sight ofa dOci and the sound of the word 'dog'). If thecoding system to be effective and- recap easy; itis essenti3i that the data base should contain alarge number of olcarly defined and well differenti-ated concepts which.olso carry a large number ofconnecting links with Other concepts, ideas or events.The ability to think divergentlyor creatively willpresumably depend on the extent to which the memoryhos developed a mUltiplicity of unusual, but valid,Lnterconnections. It will also depend -on theay.Ilability of approprate, perhaps leisurely,search ilteohanisn- -_:xplore fruitful combinationsof ideas.

Another model of the memory has been developedby Craik and Lockhart (1972). They broke away fromthe mechanistic;. three-bcx model by proposinginstead different levels of processing. Memory isseen as involving a "hierarchy of processing stageswhere. greater 'depth' implies a greater degree ofsemantic or cognitive 'analysis". Recall ofcom-plex material will also be enhanced by systematicelaboration at the same level of processing (Craikand Tulving, 1975) .

57

Pergenality and Cognitive Style in Studying

Elaboration can be seen as developing linkagesbetween_the new idea and previous knowledge and

personal experience;It is therefore possible to_recol-ider our two

mdin study orientations within the§e mfidols of the

memory. An Orientation towards uneerstanding (deep

approach and comprehension learning) depends on adeep level of processing and elaboration, Repro-ducing (surface -approach and operation learning)_ismere likely to involve overlearning by repetition ata shallOW level of processing with _ittle use of

elaboration.Our research_ strategy has involved translating

constructs deriVed from qualitative analyses ofstudents' i-eported experiences of studying intospecific items of typical_study processes and atti-

tudes. We have then looked for explanations of theemerging study orientations- in terms of psydhological

thyoles. It ia; of course; more common to extra-palate psychological the-dries into educational_con-texta, in the expectation that basic psychologicalprocesses will be utilized wherever learning andremembering are being demanded. It is interesting;and reassuring, to discover that this researchstrategy converges on a deSCription of student_learning recognizably_ similar to our own.

From the UniVeraity of Southern Illinois; Schmeckand his colleagues have rePorteda_series of studies_using an InVentery of Learning Processes_(see Schmeck;in press; for an extensive summary of -this work).Their approach has been to identify thedroceSsesidentified most clearly in major theories of humanlearning and then to produce items which describethose processes in relation to the_"environment andactivities of the typical College student". Factor

analyses of_these_items have_producedfour maindimensions deSeribing distinct learning processes -

deep processing, elaborative processing; fact reten-tion and methodical study. Examination of the indi-vidial items stioWs conceptual overlap beiween_thesedimensions_and our study orientations described in the

previoUS -chapter; 'Orientation tounderstanding'covers both_deep and elaborative processing; but alsocontains items_relating to intention and intrinsic_

motivation. 'Reproducing' is made up, partly, of the'fact retention' dimension, but is perhaps relatedmore strongly to shallow processing_(i.e, rote memor-

izing proceSse§)*; Thi=t Methodical study dimensioncannot be equated with our 'achieving orientationSchmeck deSdribes_his scale as covering the activitiesrecommended by a 'how to study manual'. In our*(Hut see Appendix, table A4).

58


inventory this area would be covered in part by theaUb-aCale of 'organised study methods', but also by'syllabus- boundness' which is within our 'repro-ducing' domain: One major difference_between theSchmeek inventory and our own (and Biggs') is thatit does not_contain either attitUdinal or motivation-al items, Which in our analyses are found to bemost closely related to_academic achievement.

The similatity in findings does_however indicatethe utility of attempting to relate our orientationsto more fundamental psychological processes. Ouranalyses haVe tried_to distinguish approaches (per-haps more markedly affected by the learning context)from styles (implying links with persisteni-indi-vidual differences). The factor analyses -did notallow this separation to be made clearly, but theconceptual diatinction can be explored in relationto_theexisting psychological literature; A holis-tic style, the wide-ranging search foranalogies andinterconnections between ideasi could be seen_as anew way of describing a more familiar term - 'diVer-gent thinking'. Similarly seriaIism might beassociated with convergent thinking;

STYLES OF THINKING

Hudson (1966) popularized the distinction be-tween convergent thinking (as measured_ by_ convention-al tests of reasoning) and divergent thinking, which#8 productive or imaginative rather than logical andanalytical. Hudson used the simple 'Uses ofObjects' test which asks for as many different usesas possible for such everyday objects as a barr 1 cra paperclip. Soores_depend on both the number ofresponses produced and on their novelty or statisti-cal rarity.

Hudson (1966) drew attention to the wide differ-ences in performance on the Uses of. Objects Testeven_of sixth-formers whe_were all highly intelligent.The inability of some pupils to think of more than themost obvious uses led Hudson to designate them asconvergers_'i while the superabundance of uses pro-

duced by Other boys indicated -that they could becalled 'divergers'. The Iabel_given depends onwhich test score was higher - the verbal reasoningtest or the Open-ended_test. Hudson illustrates howwide the differences can_be by quoting two extremeresponses. Th0 boys had been asked_to list_as manyUses as they_could_think of for a barrel; _ Beth boyswere highly intelligent, but one was a mathematicianand the other was an arts specialist.

59


"Converger KoOping wine in, playing football.

"Diverger - For storing old_clothesi shoes,toots, paper, etc. For pickling onions in. _

Fbt growing a yew-tree in. For inverting andsitting on._ As a table. As firewood choppedup. As a drain or sump for rainwater. As a

sand pit. At a party for_games. For makingcider or beer in. As a play -pen for a smallchild. As a rabbit hutch, inverted with adoor out_of the side. On top of a pole as adove-cote. Let into a wall as a night exitfor a dbg or a cat: As -the base for_a_large_lamp. As a vase for golden rod and michaelmasdaisies; as an ornament, especially if it is a

small one. With holes cut in the -top and sides,

either for growing wall-floWera and strawberriesin, or for Stacking pots, and kitchen utensils.As a proper garbage can or wastepaper basket.At a ladder to reach the top shelve§ of a high

bookcaSe. As a casing for a_homermadebomb.Sawn in half, as a doll'S drib. At a drumAS a largo bird's nest" (Hudson, 1966, page 90-

91).

Hudson found that a majority of eonvel:lers_studied sciencei_ while diVergera mainly specializedin the arts; He also_suggested that these interests,

and the cognitive abilities associated with them, havetheir roots in child-rearing practices. The type ofresponses made by convergers led Hudson to the_con7elusion that these pupils were emotionally inhibitedand he speculated that-this inability to expressemotion overtly stems ftbit cool, overdemandingmothers. Divergent thinking is elearly a componentof problem solving, but logical thinking_isalSO__needed. A combination of imaginative production andanalytic reasoning the alternation of the curiousand the critical which marked heath's 'ReasonableAdventurer' - is often necessary.

One of the weaknesses of the Uses of Objectstest is_that it accepts both plausible and implaus-ible uses; Raaneim (1974) has developed a 'cate-gorizing' test which avoids this weakness by_deman7ding realistic alternatiVet. In this test the namesof successive groups of three objects are presented:In each group One name is underlined and the task_isto indicate in howmany different ways the underlinedobject differs from both of the other ones. _Raaheimdescribes the test as measuring cognitive flexibility.It seems to be a concept similar to that used by

60

Persona ity and Cognitive Style in Studying

Bicri et al (196u) - cognitive complexity which_olso demands flexible alternations of categorizationsbat which is described by Bieri as a cognitive style.Raaheim sees it as an ability,

The difference between divergent thinking andconvergent thinking is not just one of differentprocesses. There seem to be; as Hudson hinted,emotional and attitudinal components. de Bono(1971) has used the term 'lateral thinking' to des-cribe_ the alternative to vertical, analytic thinking.HO likens problem-solving to digging holes.Logical thinking often comes to the point of diggingdeeper and deeper holes in quite the wrong place.He suggests that 'lateral thinking' is more likelyto be effective_ a series of shallow, exploratoryholes prior to 'deep drilling'. Lateral thinking _

seems to be closely allied to divergent thinking, andde Bono sees it as being necessarily leisurely, oftenhaving a dream-like quality where the emotions; aswuLl as the intellect; are given free rein.CrutChfield (1962) suggests that

"One source of original ideas lies in the readyaccessibility to the thinker of -many rich andsubtle (emotional) attributes of the perceptsand concepts in his mental world and to themetaphorical and analogical penumbras extendingout from their more explicit, literal and purelylogital features. For it is_partly through_asensitivity to such (emotional) and metaphori-ea] qualities that new and 'fitting' combin-a::ional nossibilities_among the_blements of aproblem may unexpectedly emerge" (page 124).

These strategies_of thinking can be readily des-cribed in the terminology of the information pro-cessina model. Divergent thinking_is_a searchstrategy which has a broad focus and allowsconnections between ideas to be made, even when thejustifications for the associations are not obvious.The wide sweep of relevant information encompassesboth semantic and episodic elements within_the_LTM,_The search -3s likely to be relaxed, slow, broad, andnot limited to a specific location in the informationstore. On the other hand_ convergent thinking willtend to be narrowly focused; intense, fast andlimited to specific locations, This distinction _

between broad; leisurely, inclusive raMbles throughLTM, compared with narrow, fast, and limited forays,parallels Pasks distinction between holists andserialists, and seems to be at the root of the more

61

7a


general, but_ill-dufined, psychological term 'cog-

nitive style'

COGNITIVE STYLE

Cognitive styles, like personality traits, areconsidered by_mest psychologists to be_fairly -con-sistent, and laSting, modes of functioning:

"Th0 stability and pervasiveness of cognitivestyles across diverse spheres Of behavioursuggest deeper_roots in personality- structurethan might at first glance -be impliedCognitive style--; may entail_ generalized habitsOf informatior .:ecessing, to be sure, but -theydevelop in conial ways around Underlying _personality trends. Cognitive styles are thtSintimately inter-woven with affective, tempera-mental, and motivational structures as part ofthe total personality ;;;

Cognitive styles differ from_intelleCtUalabilities in a number of ways dimen-sions essentially_ refer to the content or cog-nitiOn or the question of what what kind_ofinformation is being processed by what operationin what form?

... Cognitive styl0sj in_contrast, beat on thequestions of how - on the manner in whichbehaviour occurs ... Abilities, furthermore; aregenerally thought of as unipolar .(and) valuedirectional: _having more of an ability is better

than having less. Cognitive styles are (bi7.polar and) value differentiated: _each_pole hasadaptive value ... (depending) upon the natureof the situation and upon_thecognitiVe require-ments bf the task in hand" (Messick, 1976, pages6 - 9) .

Two of the best known cognitive styles_derivefrom perceptual -tasks 7 Matching_ Familiar Figures(Kagan et- al; 1964) and identifying Embedded Figures(witkin, 1977). Figure 5.1 shows an item from oneOf Kogan's MFF tests_which consists_of a standarddrawing and six or eight variants one of which isidentical to the standard, and all of whiCh areSithilat. The respondent_ is required to answer asquickly as possible, but has to make another attemptafter each incorrect response. __There is thUS apressure to find the correct answer, but also to

62


decide quick Kug.in ( 1976) sees the situation asbuilding up competing anxieties towards correct; orfast, responses. The average tiwe to answer(response latency) is measured and 31so_ the number _

of errors. Two cognitive styles have been detectedWith this test. Impulsive people succumb ropidlyto the need to identify_ the matching_ figure: _theychoose hurriedly and make more mistakes. Petlectiveindividuals treat the task more analytically andcautiously: they are more accurate, but slower.

The second cognitive style has perhaps attract-ed the greatest attention. _An_item from an EmbeddedFigures Test (EFT) is shown in Figure 5.2. Witkin(1976; 1977) has reviewed the extensive literatureon the use of_this and other methods of measuring theaimension of field dependence/field independence.In the EFT the respondent_is shown a_simple geometri-cal figure and is required to identify it in a com-plex figure. The task is rather similar to the__children's puzzle in which; say, a 'hidden rabbit'LS discovered as part of the foliage of a tree.Some people can spot the embedded figure almostimmediately: they are not distracted by thesurroundings and are categorised as field - independent.Other people_spond much longer even with the simpleitems. Witkin argues that the different scores onthis test do not simply reflect perceptual skills.Like Pask he argues for the existence of underlyingstyles of thinking. Witkin labels these styles_articulated (_field -independent) and global (field-dependent), which seem, at first sight, to bear someresemblance to Pask!s descriptions of operationlearning and comprehension learning.

The articulated, field-independent style in-volves analysing and structuring incoming information; theglobal, field-dependent mode of operation acceptsthe totality of impressions. The problem of Witkin'sdescription is that field-dependence is an inabilityto impose structure. If it is to be a stylei arather more positive !tLe_e can only be inferred fromincidental characteristics such as tendencies to besociable and to have an interest in other people;Field-dependent students express this interest inpeople by being drawn towards courses in the humani-ties and social ;ciences; and opting out of coursesin science and mathematics. Field- independentstudents, while found predominantly in sciencefaculties, are still capable of success in other areasof study. This facility raises the question ofwhether these students might be best compared withPask's versatile learners, rather than with operation

63


Figure 5.1 Example of an Item from a MatchingFamiliar Figures Test

Figure 5.2 Example of an Item from an EMbedded'7''gurel, Test.

64

Al A2


learners. But hurt we run up against lack ofempirical evidence._

From an educational standp, perhaps the mostinteresting_ studies reported by Witkin_concern theteaching methods adopted by teachers of contrastingcognitive style. It appears that field-independentteachers or lecturers impose a tighter and morelogical structure on teaching material than do'global' teachers. They also- prefer more formal_approaches to teaching. Witkin argues that field-dependent students need pre-structured informationisince. they are less able to impose their ownanalytic frameworks. Hence field-dependentstudents ought to be more successful with teacherswho have an articulated cognitive style; To datethere is no evidence of differential success ratesibut there is a clear_ indication that students preferto be taught by teachers Of the -same cognitive style.Thure is (hus a_possible conflict here between_theapproach students prefer and what is considered tobe most effective in helping them to learn.

PERSONALITY

PersonaIity_can be defined as "the dynamicorganization within the individual of those psycho-physica2 systems that_determine his_ characteristicbehaviour and thought" (Allport, 1963, page 28).The term 'personality' is thus the broadest of all.It can be taken to include cognitive abilities; butthese are generally excluded. Styles of whateversort are certainly contained within_this. definitionand there are many indications in the literaturethat distinctive behaJioural or thinking styles area facet of personality._

The description of personality, and its measure-ment, has depended on the identf.fication of what seemto be relatively consistent 'common traits':

"Common traits are those aspects of_puality in respect to which most people with' , agiven culture can be profitably comparedThe scientific evidence for the existence of atrait always comes from demonstrating by someacceptable method theconsistency_in_a person'sbehaviour" (AIIport; 1963, page 343);

A useful common trait-must show the_consistencyof representative groups of individuals both overtime and between situations. A major problem is todecide how much consistency is required to provide

65

844,

:'crsonality and Cognitive St e in Studying

evidence for _the eyistence of a trait. People'sbehaviour, Of course; is hover entirely predictablefrom one situation to another: _it shows_both_con-SiStency and inconsistency:- Some psychologists haveused this fact to argue against attempts to describepersonality in terms of traitsi or even againsttrying to Measure it at all Labelling can be seenas limiting human potentialiti0S. Bronowski (1965)ha_-, rounded on these critics and asked them a serienot awkward questions about human predictability,

________"(If) a man does not want to be law- abiding;very well then, it is time to ask him the rudebut searching question !'Do you want to be law-less?" Ybu refuse to be predictable as an

lsi or an animal; do you_aspire to beunpredictable? And if soi are you_unpredict-able to yourself, the actor, as well as to me,Ihe_speetator? Do you base your claim_to_be aSelf on the proud assertion that your actionsare arbitrary? (No) ... a self must have con-sistency; its actions_tomorrow must be recog-ni..:ably of a piece with the actions carried outyesterday" (pages 13-15).

The extent of such consistency is ail empiricalquogtion; If important traits can be measured, -andif these are also fbund, on the whole, to be consis-tently_related to a variety of_aspects of behaviour,then their use in psychology is surely justifiable.But which traits have proved most useful in des-cribing personality?

Jung (1938), ftom his clinical experienceidentified what he considered tobe twofundamentanydifferent psychological types people who viewed theworld in opposite ways - the extravert and the intro-vert, _ The extravert; as the word implies,- looks-outWatd. HiS behaviour is predominantly orientatedtowards events in the outside world ant hiS thinkingis dominated by the search for objective racts.The introvert, on the conttary, looks inward. Out-side events arei of coursei perceived but they tendto be judged by personal values and_standards. Theintrovert's thinking is inflUenced by even obsessedwith;- personal interpretations and theories._ Jungsees dangerS in both extreme ways of thinking;

"For as in the former case the purely empiricalheaping together of facts paralyses thought andsmothers their meaning, so in the latter caseintroverted thinking shows a dangerous tendency

66

Personality and Cognittve tyle in Studviny

to coerce fac:is Lnto the shape of its image, orby ignoring them ultoqother, to unfold itsphantasy image in freedom" (pages 481-482):

In Jung's theory the extraverted and introvertedtendencies are both present in every peison.WhiChever characteristic becomes dominant in a per-son's behaviour and conscious thought; its oppositecontinues to be represented in the unconscious asthe sh-adow, and is thought to have a continuingeffect on the development of personality.

In writing about personality theories, Jungpointed out that the choice of a particular type oftheory, or an emphasis within that theory, was inpart a reflection of the theorists's own personality.Thus Jung's theory; with its description of extra-version and introversion in terms of ways ofthinking, perhaps reflects Jung's own admitted intro-version. Ho was not much concened with outside:vents. In contrast Eysenck (1965) has provideddescriptions of extraverts and introverts whichstress differences in behavou.

"(The typical extravert is) sociable, likeSparties, _has many friends, needs to have peopleto talk to, and does not like studying by him-self; Ho ves excitement, takes chances,often stic: is neck out, acts on the spur ofthe moment, and is generally an impulsiveindividual ... The typical introvert, on theother hand, is a quiet -etiring sort of person,introspective, fond of books rather thanpeople; he is reserved and distant except withintimate friends._ He -tends to plan ahead,"looks before he leaps", and distrusts theimpulse of the mcm:mt" (pages 59-60).

Eysenck and Cattell have both used personalityinventories and factor_ analysis in the attempt todetermine which general traits are most useful in thedescription of personality. Both of them_werestudents of_Cyril Burt who had investigated aspectsof children's personality in 1915. Burt (1965)claimed to have originally identified_a_general fac,.for of emotionality, and later described two signifi-cant bi-polar factors, one of which appears to havebeen extraversion/introversion, while the otherdescribed the contrast between optimistic and pessi-mistic outlooks on life.

Cattell (1965) has identified sixteeen differenttraits, but these overlap to some extent. A

67

84

PorsonaL ly and Cognitive Style in Studying

stmplitied dcuc e il,t inn of these traits reduces thenumbei to five: anxiety, extraversion, Lender-mindedness radicol_m; and conscientiousness or.moral ,:onventionality. Eyserick's research has con-eentrated on the first tgo of these dimensions. HOhts also described the second two althoughno urigSnalLy idurittticd these lal atti'.4des'(hysunek 1970) . lilysenck's mos' nt personalityinventbrieS (Eysenck and lysencli_i )wi) now also con-tain a psychoticism scale (asocial Or antisocialmorality) and a lie_scale which measures the tendencyto live conventional responses. At this descriptivelevel there is_a good agreement between the twotheories, but Eysenck sees extraversion and what hecalls nenroLicism (similar to general emoticy-Ility)as much-more basic than the other descriptions of

persdnality.lysenck assesses levels of extraversion and

neuroticism through personality inventories which arebuilt up trom a series of questions. I ach ,juestionis an index of one particular persnnalit trait, andis chosen only after it has been proved_to discrim-inate between groups of people who are known toexhibit extraverted _or introverted patterns ofbehaviour. Respondents are asked to reply 'yes''no' to questions such as

Can you put your thoughts into words quickly?Are you mostly quiet when you are with otherpeople?Arc you an irritable person?Are you troubled by- feelings of inferiirity?Have you ever been late for an appointment orwork?DO A sometimes boast a little?

Answers yes' to the first question and 'no' tothe se uestion are indications of extraversion.'he ne liestions suggest aspects cf neurotic:-ism, while tLe final two items are p. -art of a 'lie'scale designed to ect people who are trying topresent_ themselves ln a favourable Con-siderable care and ingenuity goes inc the design_of these personLI:ty inventories, and the strengthof the various traits is determined_by_the numberof responses given in the 'extraverted' or 'neurotic'directions. Although apexcon's response to anyindividual item may be affected by he wordingi or bytheir mood at the time, their overall score on say25 items remains fairly conslstent over time, atleas' among adults.

Persoholity And Cognitive Style in Studying

A ct):11:, ah I rch 1 tero, His built upwhi,.11 reports personality in reiaLl. ooth to _

.0dents' Academic performance and to choice ofsubject area (see Entwistle and Wilson, 1977). ItI;ek2'A ; os it introverts Lend to be more successfulSi unts, his a!: ndiceLed in Chapter 4, this isprobably :-Itt,,ibIt ible to better study habits. ThereAre, howeveri clear differences in personalitybetween students in di t t event subject areas andthese are presented diagrammaLicLlly in Figure 5.3.

High,notivalion

'table

CUI,.ervOIIVe

Syilabus-bOund

Trtooteueal40lues

ELonom.o values

Toughrnindea

High

_evE1S

I

HIGH

Highaptitude

Good_ study methods

Hard wor king

ACADEMIC 5ERFORMANCE

SCIENCE ARTS

t.0\....---

cOW,----ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

E oravet

Not hardworkingPoor

study methodsLow

LowaptitudeLevels

Introver red

\ Tenderminded

\- Religious values

Aesthetic 'wallies

SOCIal values

ISyllabus- tree

RadicalPolitical values

Emotionally unstableLow motivation

Figure 5.1 Relationship between students' characteristics, faculty membership,and lesel of academic performance (Adapted from Entwistle and Wilson, 1977.

page 1.48

The indication that cognitive styles and probablylerning styles also differ by faculty reinforcedthe decision to include Indices of personality in ourinveigation of the more fundameLL,11 psychologicaltraits %,-hich may underlie approaches a%d styles oflearning.

69

Per-,iluility and c .Trl.tive Style in Studying

TP1: DESLUN OF THE t.;TUpYA

The first Step was to identify groups of stu-

dents who had diStinctively differentorientat-Abh8to studyin,;. _The Second pilOL version of the

ApproaeheS to SLud,.;..ing Invent.ory was used for this

puri,ose. Prom the scimplo or: 767 first year

:Anil:ult.:13; 130 were selected as having the highest

or lowest scores on the sub.scales which mostolotr1y meAhurcd meaningoriehtation and_reproducing

iii iehtatiOn F.or_thi:', purpose the combined scoreson (cup opproci, p 1 its comprehension learning were

used. The dichotomy on each combined measure pro-

duced tour groupS.The 130 seloetodsLuderits were sent the third

version of the inventory tocomplete and were initet1

to tdko_part n the test sessions.. _Seventy-twostudents a.treed to participate and 60 finally came

to the la1lial interviews. In spite of repeatedrewinuers, no others callie; The distribution of60 students between the four groups i8 shown below.

Sul-lace/operation

Deep/Comprehension

Nigh Strategic Reproducing

N1= 13 N

311

Low Meaning Unmotivated

N`= 15 N4

= 21

The terms used to describethe groups werechosen on the baSiS of the me,n scores on the inven-

tory. Th :.:mallest group (rc:)roduting)_were mainly

scientists WhO showed a disapI,Anting_reluctance tobe involved in the study: The largest group (Un-MdtiVated) were paradoxically,_very helpful and co-

oper,tiVe, yet their characteristic waS. low

scoreson most of thesub-scales and subsequcht tests.The tests were given is the order SheWh below

over a period of some 15 months. Payments were Made

* This study Was carried out by Sarah MoriSdh (ftge

Burkinshaw)

70

P-ursbnality and Cognitive Style in studying

Louvcry sludcnt Wh() eumpletrld soiuo 7 hours of tes'tincji sproa0 over the 6 sessions.

1

SeSSiOn Test Method ofAdministration

Approacues to Studying Inventory(Third Pilot Version) Post

2 futerviews

3 (a) Omnibus Personality IiNentery(b) Matehini., Familiar Figures (MFF)

IndividUally

Individually

Moray House Advanced VerbalReasoning (MHA) Swil Groups

(a) Test of Categorizing (TC)(b) Uses of Objects (UO)(c) Test of Generalising and

Abstracting (TGA)(d) Embedded Figures (EFT)

6 Spy Ring History Test

SMAll Groups

MiertiCOMOUterIndividually

The ilitialinterview was designed to interestand motivation It WAS essential thy.,_ ,ve;y studentcompleted thewhole test battery; yet tr.:a 3.!mands onthe students were very heaVy_ nBy establising a_pers-,Inal relatienShip w:th_each student; provid-ing (optionally) information aboUt test scores and aninterpretation of thOM-,_ by explaining. the relevanceand importance of_ pthe roject; by encouragementthroughout, and eventually by Offering a financial_rewar3_for complccienofthe full set of teStS; all60 students were retained in the study throughouta period of 12-15 months.

The tests usedare described below in sufficientdetail_to ensure that the meaning of each dimensionmeasured can be urderStbod. The tests_AreA_rittb-d-ited within five measurement areas or deMains:

Personality ,and Cognitive St.,lo in Studying

poi:sunality, rdnoning abiiiLy, cognitive style,cogniti..o flexibility and learning style.

PERSONALITY

The test chosen was the Omnibus PersonalityTest (Heist and Yonge,_1968); as it had beenspecifically designed for use with students andcontained sub-scores on 14 traits; several ofwhich had, in the literature, been shown to be _

related to choice of subject area, and seemed alsolikely to be related to differences in learningstyle. The traits measured are as follows:

high scorers show a preference forideas. rather_than practical action;they have wide-ranging ,:cademicinterests.

have a logical, analytical andapproach to problems;

an interest in science andtheoretical concerns and problems.

- have wide interests and involvement in literature; music;painting, architecture, etc.

show tolerance of ambiguity_;_enjoy novelty; adopt flc-riblr,

approaches to problems.

distrust control and authority;ate tolerant of other people'scontrary views; prefer radicalliberal thinking.

- reject conventional religiousbeliefs and practices.

enjoy_being with people andattending parties or social_functions; are happy to join indiscussions or talk in public.

act on the_si,:r of the moment.,are ready to :xpress theirfeelings; have an activeimagination

72


are not socially alienated orpersonally disturbed, having nostrong feelings of paranoia;guilt, or inadequacy.

ANXT do not see_cLemseIves as restless,tense, an.:ious, over-sensitive,or highly strung.

Alt show friendly concern for others;are trustinE have anInterest ii: the community andsocial relationships.

PIVC`:- have interests in practi al things;value material possessions andfactS; have a tendency also to beauthor ?Irian and conservative inoutlook.

have interests in science (notaesthetics), are calm, emotionallystable, mud deny personalinadequacies.

are attempting to make a goodimpression (faking mood); aresocially conventional, content andrelaxed.

It is important to note that some of thesepersonality_scales contain items quite similar tothose contained in our Approaches to Stud-4-t4Inventory._ There is, in terms of cotoverlap beten, for example, deep ap, _Oaththinking introversion and theoretica. ,n.

But the overlap is small enough to e acceptthe personality traits as distinct.,measurc of theoretical introversion coinJes with _

the personality con-'ruct, particularly as desoribeihy Jung, and trl, v.. _dity of the other personalitydimensions has also been carefully established;

REP.33NING ABILITY

The main test used was the Moray House AdvancedTest of Verbal Reasoning (Godfrey Thomson Unit, 1971),which_is a conventional 'intelligence' teat; Itprovides a score in terms of an intelligencequotient with a mean of 100 for the population.

73

Persono::*y and Cocinitive Style in Studying

IN ,Iddi ',,.,2crolizing and

AbstracLing 6 OSed. A Set of threewords is prc, I: at altera ves ore offered

o -3Lyct: e,l/dE hove in

conmon.

Po.- example: Ch.:. Ly ,),t-thy

Voluntary work; Hu GeueresiLy; r,ockiny

in some people

In cacti item the listiucing alternative responsescontain a word of similar meaning but at he sametevet_of generality, o particular instance orexample, and a non-esiential_attribute. The itemsare divided into concrete and abstract Germs, pro-viding :.cprato estzmates of the abil'.ty to abstractand generalize correctly.

COGNITIVE STYLES

Field-Independence

The Group Embedded Figures Test (described inWitkin et al, 1977) produces a single score offield-Lndepeldence t;;hi-ch eepreohts the total numberof simple figures correctly identified within thecomplex figures (see Figure 5;2), The simple _

figures arc shown first, followed on the next pageby the complex figures, The test is in two partswith nine item:; in eae7i and an overall. time-limit of

en minutes.

Itc!fiectiveness/Impulsivitz

The Matthihq Fami)iar Figures_Test_was used ina form suitable for young adults (described :11

Messer, 1976). Two_scores were 6- ?rived from thistest the average time taken to make Lite first_response (which indicates reflectiveness) andtotal number of incorrect choices made (inaccuracy).

Cognitive Flexibility

The Uses of Objccts test was used to obtain ameasure of verbal_fluency total number of user)while thc Categorizing TeSt provided. an- indicationof flelLibility. Both tests have been descrioedin an earlier sectors:

74

rsonality and Cognitive Style in Studying

Learning Style

Pask (197Gb) has used the Spy Ring HistoryPest to provide indices of comprehension learningioper.ltion learning and versatility. The test iso'llAthy and intellectually demanding. Studentsare presented with detailed information aboa:. thedevelopmet of an imaginary spy network operatingetween several countries over a period of three

years. Students have to rote-learn lists andinterpret diagrams to_work out the communicationpatterns and make predictions about future develop-ments. Besides the three _indices of learningstyle. the test also provides a score on 'knowledgeof facts'.

Because of the_demanding nature of this testand the lengthy administration time, the test wasmounted on a PET microcomputer *. The_computercontrolled the_appearanee of lists and diagramsand also calculated the scores.

Students' reactions_to this_test.were, on thewhole; unfavourable; They found it difficult andboring. Many students resented the demands madefor continuous rote learning.; and the resultsindicated that few students had coped adequatelywith these demands. Those_who found the testinteresting were mainly studying science orengineering. Arts students seemed to find_thetype of learning_ required alien; and were oftenuncomfortable with using the PET. Even thescoring procedure seemed to penalize_arts_students. It_thus came as no surprise that theresults made little sense. The scores intended tomeasure learnirg_styles had_weak and_contradictoryrelationships with supposedly equivalent dimensionsfrom the Approaches to Studying Inventory. Zn_anexplcrhtory factor analysis Pask's test formed itsown_31;.iotor with high positive loadings on all threestyles end on knowl:dge of facts. The chly_significant_loadi elsewhere were on verbalreasoning, field independence, and accuracy. Thisdisappointing set of relationships_; which -werecontrary_to the patterns demanded by Pask's owndescriptions of the ctImstructs, lad the test tobe _dropped. from m;din analyne; It may be thatour attempt to preselit the test. L% a more attractive

* We are grateful to Gordon Past: for making the com-puter program available and to 21111 Odor for adaptingit for use on the PET.

75

Personality and CognitiVe Style in Studying

way on tEe mict,,cymputcr interfered with the vali(t-ity Of the test which has been used effectiVely byPask in its original form in several studies.The microcomputer presentation may have misledStudehtS intO believing they had learned_ the materialmore throcacihly_than tl,:y had, thus preventing themresponding to subsequent parts of the test.

CHARACTEISTICS OP STUDENTS WITH CONTRASTINGAPPROACHES

The main question being asked in thithe retearth was whether students adopt:;trastinq approa,nest:1 st.idying showed eq7differences in any of the more fundamentalpsychological chActeristics included in thestudy. The -g' '

-tanalysis thus examined themean scores an 3ard deviations of thef,,.)rcontrast in or ,

sing analyses of variance toindicate whet1 :,erences between the groups werestatistically . leant._ With such small groupsthere a!:e a lay ...mbar of insignifitantdifferenees. The results were thus treated only asindicative and other r.nalyses carried out. In

terms of personality; the first indications werei.aatstUdehtS high in meaning orientation ha%.k highscores; as expected, on thinxing introversion andtheoretical orientation; but also_on complekity(fery_marked) and to a lesser extent on autonomy,aestheticism; and religious sc_!pticiaM. TheSttategit group ;;ere characterized by_high_anxiety,less personal integration and a higher level of

impulse expression. The_reproducing group hadhigh scores on practical outiook ard masculinity,combined with low scores on thin!:ing introversion;theoretical orientation; complexity and ant-Oh-OM?.

the unmotivated grou, could only be described asunresponsive and conventional. The remainingtests showed nn significant differences, althoughthere wasa Fagcestion that high scores on meaningorjentat±on were associated with greater facilityin verbal ,:easoring And verbal fluency. _Studentswith high scoffer. oil loarningshowed a LPnaeny cowards field dependence Whithnearly reached statistical Fignificance.

76 93

Personality and Cugnitil,;,:. .1. Studying

RELATLONSHIP!: 7C1'Pk0A. AND PSYCHOLOGICALATTRIBUTFS

The Lithe- main analysis involved looking atthe correlates of deep/surface approaches and_com-prt_hensi.)n and oL,eration The statisticallysignificant_ correlations found witn each of 0-sc,variables arc shown in Table 5:1:

These simple correlations provide an initi,indication of the extent to which there may bepersonality correlates of learning styles orapproaChes to studying. The im:res.sion createdby Table 15.1 is that; as predictuj; :'vies; ratherthan approac)1(2s, are more close; Jseociated withpsychological attributes. Stud,. is with highscores on comprehension learning ;,end to have highscores on a group of personality which relateto interest. Ln ideasi_but they also tend_to be_moreready Lo cxpress impulses and admit feelings of-11t1xicty and inadequacy. Operation learners havec*n_oppoSite set of personality attributes asscatedwith iL:Ler(-:, in practical, non-theoretical areas.They also si owedcaution (reflectiveness) and hadlower score on the abstract ites the generall-zing test.

To 111:' :t sense of the 'total set of inter-relationTh_pE; it is again necessary to carry out afactor am:lysis, but as there are 7 variables andonly 60 students this multivariate analysis has tobe treat-_2d as expleratory, rather than definitive.Given thu small sample;_care was taken to includeonly those variables which could create factors(at least two overlapping variables are necessary).After a series of exploratory analyses withdifferent groups of variables, the clearest set offactors wary by_using principal componentfactor analyses rotation to oblique simplestructure to the set of variables shown in AppendixTable_3. Six factors had etgen values above unit-.

The 'actors ass mainly associated with thedifferent measurement domains. ThusFactors_I andII represent_meaqng orientation combined withpositive attituue; to studying, while reproducingorientation i3..7,ssocj.ated_with_straLegic, achievement:lyptivation. The personality inventory produces twoFact one: c) which brings together complexity;autonomy; one impulse. exp_.:ession ;:pticalintellectual autonomy), while the other is dominatedby anxiety and z. leak of personal integration: _Cfthe remainin'.! smaller factors one ,eems to describethe ability to intellectual and peiceptual

77

10 Arad

MNIFICANT CORRELMONS APPROAUES AND STYLES (N z 60)

Comprehension Learning Surface Approach

Ii

0

H

keratidh Learning

. -_._c])

a

Thinking Introversion (1) Thinking introversion (52) Practical Outlook (38) Practial Outlook (39) n

0

Thoo,Qtictil Niodk (18) Aesthuicism (0) Thinking Introversion(-31) Complexity (-31)

Aestheticism (31) Theoretical Outlook (19) Theoret;cal Outlook (-26) Aestheticism (-30) F''

Impulse Lxpresslun (28) Complexity (33) Ahtrat

Ceneraliing (-28)

Complexity (21) Personal Integration (31)

ReflectiVen-ess (23)

Verbal Fluency (24) Impulse Expression (30)

Thinking

Practical Outlook (-23) Introveron (-23)

Verba, ')easoning (23)

Anxie,% Denial (-21)

Deimal pints otitted

05

CoqmitiQe StIrle in !-;tudyin(i

puz' k!s, the I iii fact t)r seems to describe theabi it wAeson's 'C.iverger'

In is, of course, particularly interesting tolook tor overlap between the final four factors andscores ol the Approaches to Studying 1-aventory.Thus FLIcLUI I I suqgests that fear of failure andglobetrotting ,_linked to disorganized_surfaceapp):oaches_to studying, are associated with generalfeelings of anxiety, tenseness and inadequacy.Fransson. (1977).has_already shown that it is not somuch a threatening learning si-t-u-ation which inducessurface approaches to_studying, as it is students'perceptions of that_sttuation as anxiety provoking.These findiqs could be taken to indicate that itmay be as much a studant's underlying general anxietyWhich _tnducs surface learning as the particularlearning context_experiencd. But the direction ofcausality and the effer`-.s previous experiencecannot_ ti determinee fr._11 Lype of analysis.

Factor IV : 7he -c-irsonaiity grouping ofsceptical in to z.rt,Jnomv. Its fairly stronglinks also wit. ee class. ard. deep comprehensionlearning arereing:, although the element ofdisorganization and globetrotting is unexpected.Again it is.clear..that the general personality. traitis reflected in approaches to studying (an indicationof syllabus-freedom) and in tests of thinking.(abstract generalizing and flexibility); The abilityto solve puzzls links only with complexity and tc,0use of evidence. The 'divergers' of Factor VI s)-.Owreadiness _to express their impulses (as Iludsonargued), but their deep approach, linked as it iswith negative attitudes, is not associated withdegree class.

Additional analyses were also carried out t:oidentify correlates of high levels oi academicperformance. Overall it was clear that a deeporiencation, combined with both intrinsic andachievement motivation, were the attribtes mostconsistently related to degree class. However,anxiety was positively related to academic perform-ance among women.

Drawing togethLi the evidence derived from thispart of the inquiry; It is possible to argue thatthere are underlying personality traits associatedwith the tendency to_prefer comprehension oroperation styles of learning. It also appears thata deep orientation involves) at least to someextent1 the abilities ito think both logically andfleXibly, combined with the personality char.acter-istios described as sceptical InteIlec-hual illcon my.


In spite of i curtain circularity through_similaritems, the argument for personality correlates ofstyles of learning is still pressed, based on_thevalidity of the traits identified in the OmnibusPersonality Inventory.

STUDENTS' PREFERENCES FOR CONTRASTING STYLES OF WK,14_

The next section describes an experiments carfiout after the test sessions had been completed, inwhich students were asked to read, and answerquestions on, three short articles. As part of ttki0experiment students were also asked to read andcomment on four essays. These essays were_supposdto have been written by students, although in factthey had been specially written to exhibit extremeof serialism and holism. The topic chosen was'Alternative Sources of Energy', a title which wasexpected to interest both arts and science student.The essays were written to fi_ as closely as possi4,100;the stylistic_ characteristics of_holists and serial idas described by Pask and listed below;

Holist characi_eristios

Comprehension Learning:

Creates an overall pictureAssimilates ideas from -other subjectsInvents description schemes

Uses analogiesHasbroad generalizations ashypotheses

Relates ideas to everyday ex-perience

Looks for alternative approaches toproblems

Globrotting-

Inappropriate links between ideas

Vacuous analogies

Serialist characters

Operation Learning:

yes

Uses rules and procdyijii.Gives details in_istpKeeps to one topic qt

a time

Proceeds in stepwismanner ,esGives specific hypou

Improvidence:

Insufficient expIa%t1of detail

Failure to use commliiprineipIe8

The instructions given to students were as follows:

You are to imagine that you are the tutorresponsible for this course and are required to writeevaluative comments on these essays indicating whak

u consider to be their stylistic strengths and

JO


weaknesses andthenLo mark each of them on a scaleon which '9' indicates an outstanding essay and '1'indicates one which is very poor indeed. On thisSeale '5' is the mid -point which should be used toindicate 'reasonably good'. Your comments shbuldmake clear your reasons for allocating the mark youdecide. Please also say which essay is mostlike one you might have written yourself andWhith one you found easiest to read."

The sample consisted of_47_of the GO studentsdescribed_ip this chapter; divided as before into thefour categories - strategic (N = 10), meaning (9),reproducing (9), and unmotivated (19). In markingthe essays; the four groups_of students SheWed clear,and different, preferences for the four essays(SerialiSt 1,2and:Holist 1,2), and also differentmarking standards which made comparisons difficult.The 'unmotivated' group,with_low meaning and repro-ducing scores; were least critical,- awarding much

:Iligher marks without any clear preference for holistCar serialist essays ;_ they marked Serialist 2 highestand Serialist 1 lowest. The reproducing group feUndboth holist essays relatively unsatisfactory; andgave their highest average mark most clearly toSerialist 2; , The meaning group preferredSetialist 2, bUt rated_Holist 1 almost as highly._Finally the strategic group; with high meaning andreproducing scores, were the most critical group(particularly -of- Serialist 1), but marked both holist_essays more favourably than the serialiSt essays.The marking pattern of the four_groups is summarizedin__Table 5.2 together with their indications of Whichessay they found easiest to read and which was mostlike their ownstyle_ofwriting._.

In this smallscale exploratory study it was notexpected to fihd clear-cut differences between thegroups. _It appears that one -of the essays (Serialist1) was too extreme_in its style for most of thestudents; and another was_generally thought to be thebest (Serialist2). However; if the high rating fOrSerialist 2 is discounted, the two groups with highcomprehension scores (groups 1 and 2) show_ consistentpreferences for holist_essays; The unmotivatedgroup show in this analysis, as in earlier analyses;

-no clear pattern.Some indication of Students' reasons for

choosing one or other style of writing_was foundamong -their comments on the essays. _For example; thereproducing group indicated their preferences forthe Serialist essays by saying:

81

CO

Table 52 PREHRENCE5 FOR SERIALIST AND HOLIST ESSAYS

-

group

Mar

........-._...-----,--,.----

SieSt to Read MOSt Like My 04

Highest Lowest Most Least Most Least

Str-aLgic HI SI lIl SI .HI. SI

.112 112 (Si)

i. Meaning (32) H2 H1 Si .H2. Si

Hl (Si)

3. Reproducing (S2) N (Si) Si Si 112

SI. 112 (Si)

Unmotivated (52) SI 112 Si H2 Si

H Holist : Serialist

0

rt

0

H.

(1)

1-1

0

0

rt

(The Serialist 2 essay was consistently judged to be the best and so the pattern shown is best

H,

.0

int.e0reted by ignoring that tssay hence the brackets grodd it);


"Very ro,Idable. Some of the definitions, e.g.joule, are n,,t nitiotly necessary but a clear a.-,d _

suitably brief account of the current dilenua. L'iteprobing and detailed but avoids dangers of being ex-cessively political or technological"; _

"Covers most aspects briefly but adequately. Easyto read. Calculations relevant and understandable.Good beginning defining what energy is anu presentfloods. Well organized and planned".

The comments they made against the holist essaysincluded:

"Too vaguei too many cliches. Uncritical._Attempt should be made to lose flowery style and concen-trate on simple sentences which are lucid and precise".

"Clear concise style Topical. _ Too much onbackgrounc. Readable and a lot of relevant pointsmade but could have gone into alternative technologyin more detail".

The students who had high comprehension learningseemed to have_ enjoyed the relaxed, conversationalstyle of both holist essays:

"Excellent. Included political analysis;Organized; _::pecks with conviction and urgency.Easy to read".

"Very interesting and lively essay taken from anunusual and worthwhile perspective. Develops logicallyand clearly. Last paragraph seems a bit out of joint";

The 'strategic group generally disliked theserialist style, but also recognized that the holiststyle_was light on_detail:

"Written as if to include x no. of facts. Onefact after another; not enough general writing tomake it readable".

"Well structured, but certainly not to be readfor pleasure. Not a_style_I like at-all".

"Narrow. Doesn't look at social/environmental/political problems. Too mach mathematics leading toarbitrary factual statements; Dry to read, no per-sonal comment".

"Good style. Pleasant emotive reading._ Wouldbe_lood for getting the point across to a difficultaudience. Could perhaps do with more details".

This exploratory study has provided some indicationcf the ways in which students may differ in their_pre7ferred sty]: writing essays. Although some of thedifferences nere may reflect little more than arts/science divisions, other analyses have shown thatimportant differences in style and approach remaineven within the distinct disciplines.

83

,1 00

Chapter Six

APPROACHES TO READING ACADEMIC ARTICLES

(Written in collaboration with Sarah Morison)

A QUESTIONNAIRE ON OUTCOME AND PROCESS

Marton's original experiments on how studentsapproached the task of reading academic articlesrelied on interviews to establish qualitative _

differences in what had been learned (outcome oflearning) and what strategies_students had used intackling this task (process of learning). He andhis colleagues had shown clearly a link betweenintention, process, and outcome Students who in-tended to understand were likely to interact withevidence and argument; in relation to their previousknowledge and experience, and so come to a personalunderstanding of the author's conclusion. Studentswho were more concerned to answer correctly what theyanticipated to be mainly factual questions on thearticle concentrated- instead on question-spotting androte laemorization and often finished with very littlegrasp_of the author's argument or conclusions.

Marton's research methodology is both time con-suming and limiting in sample size. It could alsobe argued that students are being forced to respondto questions in an unfamiliar way. Certainly-inBritaini first-year students would be more used tomaking written; rather than oral;_ responses toquestions. It was therefore decided to develop aquestionnaire variant of Marton's procedure, recog-nising that what was gained in sample s=ze_ might belost in the lack of opportunity to prk,L.:: the levelsof understanding and approaches to learning.

The early part of this Chapter is based on workcarried out by Maureen Hanley and Garth Ratcliffeand_reported_in a previous article (Entwistle,Hanley, and Ratcliffe; 1979).

84

Approaches to Reading Academic Articles

The categories identified in the qUeStiennairemint thus be expected to be less clear-cut and therelationships commensurately weaker;

The main problem in deVeldping this variant wasin find'hq a wording for the various questions onon come and process which enabled Students to under-stand what 1-is required Without also indicating whattype of answer: was expected. it also proved ex-tremely difficult to find a way of coding students'responses which kept sufficiently close to Marton'Scteeories to make a convincing test of hiJ findingsen the wider sample: A further difficulty, was infihdihe articles which were general_enough to beunderstoou by students in a partiddlar faculty, butdemanding enough and detailed enough to present aSufficient intellectual challenge;

After two pilot StUdieS a final form of thequeStiennaire was produced and three articles wereselected as follows:

(1) Burt ('971) The_Mentai Differences betweenChildren (4800 words).

(2) Pines (197G) - A Child's Mind is Shaped beforeAge 2 (3200 words) .

(3) hoyld (1950)- The Expanding Universe (3800 words)

_ This version of the questionnaire contained thefelloWing qlestions designed to cover level ofunderstandlng previous knowledge; knowledge ofdetails contained in the articlei and approach tolearning.

(1) C'ene-ra-1 Understanding 'write down what youhave learned from the article. Iinagine youwere going to describe what the article wasabout to a friend who hadn't read it; Whatwould you say ?'

(2) Attitude Statements (including an index ofprevious kilo-WI-edge). 'Rate your attitudesto this article and the ideas it contains byunderliningone Of EACH Of the three adjectivesor phrases.'

Interesting Average BoringIdedgfamiliar to me Average Ideas unfamiliar to meEnjoyable Average Ndt enjoyable

(3) Knowledge of Details 'Here are some specificquestions on various aspects of the article.Tty to answer each question as fully as you can

85

102


(4)

anti wilere necessary explain your answer.'Examples of typical questions in this sectionare:

are the stars formed?What evidence is there that the universe is ex-panding?Within the new cosmology" what is the ex-planation of the expanding universe?'

Approach to Learning 'Students tackle the taskof reading articles or bookS in many differentways; and with different expectations of whatis required of them and of what they_should begetting out of their reading. How did youtackle this article? Was this approach typicalof, or different from what you would do in yournormal studying?'

Procedure Groups of students were invited to takepart in -the experiment_ The purpose of the studywas explained in general terms, students were_thenasked to read the article as they would normally doin preparation for, say4 a tutorial There was agenerous time limit with no pressure to complete thereading quickly_ Students could make notes, butcould not use them subsequently. After reading thearticle students were asked to complete a 'Uses ofObjects' test to avoid easy verbatim recall. Theywere then asked to complete the questionnaire.

Coding Students wrote on average about 150 wordsin response to the first question. This waseffectively a short essay and thus created familiarproblems in coding the level of understanding reachethThe choice is essentially between impression markingin relation to Marton's descriptions and a relianceon specific marking criteria. Since these studieswere carried out Biggs and Collis (1982) have pub-lished a classification system for coding the quaii-tative outcomes of learning (the SOLO taxonomy), andthis has been used in studies_relating approach tooutcome (Biggs, 1979; Schmeck and Phillips, in press).In the absence of a classification scheme, simplerapproaches were adopted. In the first_study_thenumber of main points mentioned was used to identify'high' and 'low' categoriesi but in the third studya more effective procedure involved impression mark-ing against the specific criteria described by Marton.The coder made dichotomous judgements of the responseagainst the following questions.

86 103

Approaches to Reading Acadcmic Articles

(a) ((as_ a'. uttempt_been made to integrate thepresentation of the Main points and /or- facts?(i.e. has the student reinterpreted and re-organised what has been read, rather thancalling pointsin theorder read from memory ?)

(h) Have_a 'sufficient_number of main points -beenmentioned? ('SUffidient' being defined_so asto produce roughly a 50/50 distribution betweencategories).

(c) Has the author's message been understood?(d) Are details (e.g. numerical fattS, specific

names) mentioned?

Thesum of the first three Codes was used as asummary variable indicating general understanding.The second question related to attitUdeS, andstudents responded on the three-point scales shownin the previous section. Question (3) contained 12specific- questions. These were diVided into twogroups for scoring: one group had questions aboutmain points essential to an under-Standing of theauthor's argument; the Other questions concernedincidental facts. Each question was scored on thebasisof two marks_for a full answer which wascorrect; one mark for an incomplete or partiallycorrect answer. The two groups -of marks weresummed separately to give tetaLsfor essential pointsand incidental facts.

___The final question again Creates great problemsin coding; The initial approach was impressioncoding into 'deep' or 'surface'; ItUt the last study_used a similar procedure to the first question; wherethe coder was asked to_make dichotomous judgementsagainst_a_series of questions; three Of which wereindications of a deep approach and three whichsuggested a surface approach.

(a) Was there a clear intention of trying tounderstand what the author WAS Saying?

(b) Was there an intention to integrate what wasbeing tead_with other parts of the artiele,or with facts; or with preVious experience?

(c) Was there an intention to try to reach own con-clUsion_or make use_of ownperSOnal experience?

(d) Was there an intention to obtain facts orinformation?

(e) Did the - experimental COnditions appear to_haveaffeeted_performance (for example; time liMit,artificiality; consciousness of questions tobe answered, anxiety etc.)?

87


(f) Was there an intention to memorise Ot try toleatii by rote?

The_sum of the first three ratings was used asan overall indication Of a deep approach; the sumof the second three ratings-- provided a similar indi-cation of a surface approach. A different_ coderwas used for each article; but a sample of each setof questionnaires was checked_to ensurethat thecriteria were being interpreted consistently.

This version of the questionnaire was given to248 first-7-year students from various subject areasin two universities (N = 85); two colleges ofeducation (82) and first7year sixthformers in afurther education college (81) _

The articles proved to be different both in__difficulty level and ease of coding._ There couldtherefere be no comparison between the levels ofunderstanding reached_in_different articles: res-ponses had to be analysed separately by article,_Table 6.1 shoWs the mean scores of students in'thedifferent types of institution.__

There are Some marked differences_between theuniversity students and sixth-formers an the collegeOf further education. Note; for example, -that whileon both the BUrt and Hoyle articles the sixth-formersrate themselves as almost as familiar with the ideasas the students; they show on_average only_0.77indications of a deep-approach (out of a possible3); while the university students have 1.53 suchindications. The university students also havehigher scores on each of the three measures of theoutcome of learning

The intercorrelations in Table 6.2 are shown_separately for the Hoyle and Burt articles.the Hoyle artible;, the pattern of relationships is asexpected; with general understanding sheWinq asubstantial positive correlation with the deep_approach to learning (0.45) and a negative relation-ship with_the_surface approach (-0.29). The Butt_article showed much Weaker relationships; as did thePines article (not reported).

Tb check on the justification for combiningcodings within queStien (1) and within question (4)iand to look for further evidence of connectiehS_between understanding and approach; principal com-ponents analyses_without iteration were carried outWith oblique rotation using the SPSS program (Nie et

al, 1975). Application of the criterion of eigen-values of unity was supported by scree plots to

88 105

C'! f

14b16 6;1 NEAN SCORES AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS BY TYPE OF INSTITUTION All ARTICLES

ImlWw- - .

Coding Category (N)

Batt Hoyle Pines

--"iiTUIE.Unilr. FE Univ. Coll,

(10 (25) (46) (36) (35) (33) (57)

Ceneral understanding1;31 1.36 1.04 1.75 .1,34. .1;94. 1;12

(0.95) (0.91) (1.82) (1;30) (1,26) (1.03) (0.92)

Essential points5;44 3.48 3.22 9.33 8,54. _5;13. 5;12

(2,48) (2.16) (2.22) (3;96) (3.10) (1.84) 1.39)

Incidental factst.,.63 2.52 2.91 3,03 2,57 8;33 7;88

(2,00) (1.83) (1.82) (1.50) (1.15) (2.45) (2,49)

Familiarity2.19 2,32 1.98 1.94 1.91 2,06 2.19

(0.83) (0.15) (0.80) (0,15) (0,85) (0.90) (0.17)

Deep approach 1.38 0,72 0.70 1,61 0,83 1.45 1.42

(0.72) (0,61) (0.63) (0,89) (0,79) (0,97) (MO)

Surface approach 1;19 0;92 1.04 04 .1,20. .1;21. .1;18

(0,66) (0.57) (0.59) (0;74) (0;68) (0,74) (0,71)

Uses of objects24;63 22.64 20.76 23,83 0.06_ 24,21. 23;56

(7.54) (9.86) (5.59) (7;22) (5.52) (7.27) (6.90)

108

Tablv 6,2 1NTERCORRE1ATI0NS BETWEEN THE MAIN CODING CATEGORIES

EP IF FM DA SA U0

General understanding * 40 15 07 45 -29 15

0

rt

0

Essential points 47 A 46 27 32 -25 29

P.b

0

Incidental facts 19 53 * 08 10 -06 08

0Familiarity 20 01 05 * 17 -08 03 P.

0

Deep approach 11 19 27 -01 -40 24 5

H.

0

Surface approach -05 01 12 04 01 07

Uses of objects 14 21 -08 11 13 -01

Notes: Correlations above the diagonal refer to the Hoyle article (N 96); those below the

diagonal refer to the Burt article (N 47),

points omitted.

Correlations significant at the 5% level where r 0.20 (Hoyle) and r 0.21 (Burt).

107


suggest_Lhat live factors shOUld be extracted.These factors accounted for 63Z of the variance; onaverage. _These five factor solutions Were hot al-together satisfactory, as the Components of generalunderstanding andapproach to learning tended to beassociated together in rather different combinationsfor the different atticleS. The connection betweenapproach and level of understanding can;_ hOWeVer, beseen_clearly in the three-fattersolution of theresponses to the Hoylearticle (see Table 6,3);Factor I combines the three indicators of generalunderstanding and both detailed knowledge variableswith the first two criteria for identifying the deepapproach, Factor_iri shows its high loading onmemorization, which is associated with a tendency notto look for meaning, and a failure to mention themaim points when asked fbr_d summary. Factor IIshows a greater weighting on those variables relatingto facts (with the rather important exception of'incidental facts').

Table 6.3 FACTOR LOADINGS FOR THE HOYLE ARTICLE

Coding Categories Factor Loadings

I II III

Ceheralunderstanding

IntegrationMain pointsUnderstanding_Factual details

61

52

6421

27

-43-54-43

Detailed Essential points 73 48 -24knowledge Incidental Facts 43

Previousknowledge Familiarity 32

Deep LOoking for meaning 26 -56approach Use of experience 37 30 -51

Relating facts andconclusion

40

Surface Looking for information 48approach Situational anxiety -32 20

Memorization 68

Decimal points and loadings belOW 0.20 omitted.

At least with the Hoyle article it was possible

o

10891


to demonstrate the predicted links_between theapproach to learning and both the level of under- _

Standing reached and the extent of relevant knowledgeretained. The valife Of keeping each index ofeither approach or outcome separate (as opposed toMarton's method Of accepting any of three indicatorsas sufficient to categorie as overall deep or_sur-feee) was clear in_the fuller interpretation of therelationships which became possible;

STUDENTS' COMMENTS ON APPROACH TO LEARNING

Besides the_quantitative analysis, it was alsopossible to eXaMihe qualitatively the comments madeby students about their approaches to learning. InMany of the answers the distinction between_ideep'and 'surface' came thrbUgh clearly; and in wayswhich paralleled Marton's own examples of student's'continents (see r,Itton & Sdljo,_1976ai p. 9).

Consideri for example, the felleWing extractsin relation to the coding instructions. Whatapproach has each of theSe students adopted?

Student A "Whilst reading the article; I tookgreat care in trying to underttand what the authorwas getting at looking out for arguments and faettwhich backed up the arguments ;;; I found myselfcontinually relating the article to personal ex-pbtiehtb; and this facilitated my understanding ofit ... The fact of being asked questions on itafterwards made my attention more intense."

Student B "In reading the article I was lookingbut mainly for facts_and examples. I read thearticle more carefUlly than I usually wouldi takingnotes, knowing that I was to answer questions aboutit I thought the qu,?.stions would be about_the___facts in the article . Thit did influence the wayI read; I tried to rramorize names and figuresquoted etc."

Student C "1 tried hard to concentrate - too hard,_therefore my attention seemed to be on 'concentration'rather t17.an reading, thinking, interpreting, and

tbiifettibetitig; something_that find happening all thetime I'm reading text-buokS;"

Student D "I read it in a_cesual interestedmanneri not being influenced by the fact that 1 wasto be questionedi mainly because I did not expectthe questionnaire to ask for any details from the

92


article. Conseguent_Ly I read it with impartialinterest - extracting the underlying meaning butletting facts and examples go unheeded."

Although these are selected extracts chosen todemonstrate particular types of answer, many of thereplies followed Marton's examples so closely thatit seemed almost as if the students must have readabout his ideas before - but they had not.

Using Marton's approach to coding (i.e. accept-ing one 'symptom' of the approach as a sufficientindication), students A and D would be classified as_having adopted a_.deepi approach, while B and C wouldbe coded as 'surface'. Yet students A and D haveclearly adopted very different approaches. In eachof our studies there has been a distinct group ofstudents who look for meaning but:do not_interactwith the article relating facts to conclusion.This group has been labelled 'deep passive' to dis-tinguish it from the 'deep active' approach shown bystudent A.

One interesting point about the two students whoadopted the surface approach is_that both of themrecognised that their approach had been rather in-effective. A later question asked 'Were you satis-fied_with your performance (in answering the questions)?to which student B replied: "I feel that some of myanswers are vague and need more detail ... I made themistake of trying to retain everything, rather thanjust the important features," There is_at least ahint here of_the possible advantages of helpingstudents to become more consciously aware of theirapproaches to studying._ The use of the questionnaireproved fruitful, even though only one of the articlesseemed to be fully effective. It has providedevidence which; in conjunction with findings from theapproaches to studying inventory, has helped toelaborate the concept of 'approach to learning' asoriginally outlined by Marton. More recent studiesat Gothenburg (561jd, 1975; Franssoni 1977) haveindependently confirmed the necessity to subdivideapproach to learning in terms of whether an active orpassive stance has.been taken. _Sd1j8 described a!technifiedi deep approach in which the studentlooked for meaning without interacting with the detailor the argument. This approach has since beenequated with Pask's learning pathology of 'globe-trotting' on in less extreme forms_an_over-relianceon comprehension learning to the exclusion of operationlearning.

The possible connections between the differing

410 93


categories of Pack and Marton were pointed up by thfactor analysis shown in Table 6;3. Taking the twe,sets of categories together it seems likely that anintention to approach learning initially in whatSvensson has called a_holist (deep) or atomistic(surface) way will reflect,in part, the character-istic learning style of the individual. Thus theconnection between a deep approach and_comprehensioRlearning becomes inevitable. Similarly operationlearning; particularly_ where time or interest islimited, is likely to become improvidence and so re-sflect at least one component of the surface approachA holist strategy (in terms of the questionnaire restponses) should be shown by an emphasis on integrationand on_the use of personal experience; while aserialist strategy might be expected to show a greatreliance on main points and factual details. Up toa point; the distinction mentioned earlier; betweenfactors I and II in the three-factor solution shownin Table 6.2; contains this characteristic differ-ence in emphasis. This analysis continues thepattern of results now familiar from previousanalyses; The empirical findings contain hints atways of conceptualizing learning styles, as distinctfrom approaches to studying. But clear empiricalseparation of these constructs is rarely possible;

In the study by Schmeck and Phillips (in press)relationships between levels of outcome (as measuredby the SOLO taxonomy) were related to scales from thInventory of Learning Processes._ They found that_deep outcome correlated -0.37 with 'deep processing'-,but only 0.12 with 'elaborative processing'. Schmeckcomments that Marton's 'deep approach' includes "thesearch for personal meaning" which is a part of ela-borative processing. But the separation in Table6.2 between two distinct types of deep approach re-inforces our view that there are contrasting stylesin seeking understanding - one in which personal __

meaning is emphasized, and one in which the_evic.ence ;

isrelated carefully to the conclusions. In Schmeel4IPscheme; the first would be described_as elaborativeprocessing and the latter might, at first, be thoughtto be close to_'fact retention'. But there is amajor problem in accepting this equivalence. Exam-ination of the items within the 'fact retention'scale (Schmetk; in press; Table 1) shows that thetwo items having loadings of above 0.5 are :- "I do well on exams requiring much factual infor-

mation"- "I am very good at learning formulas, names and

dates"

94

Approaches to Reading Academic ArticleS

These items, and indeed all but two of the items inthe scale, are; explicitly or_implicitly, self-ratingsof outcome: they do not strictly describe processesat all. Indeed the nature of the items can be usedto explain the differential correlation with levelsof understanding. The 'elaborative processing'scale is truly a measure of_process - every -itemdescribes a process, while 'deep processing' containsan unfortunate mixture of process and outcome. Twoof the items in this scale (both with loadings ofover 0.40) are self-ratings of academic performance- "I de well on essay tests"- "I get good grades on term papers"

Thus the higher correlation between 'deep pro-cessing' -and levels of outcome must, in part, be aresult of having self-ratings of prior learning out-comes- within the scale.

This criticism becomes even more powerful whereSchmeck report that "the most successful collegestudents were deep, elaborative, fact retainers".He comments that his inventory shows higher relation-ships with academic achievement than some other scalesof learning processes. In Chapter 47 we usedstudents' self-ratings of their academic progress(which would be based on essay grades and test marks)as our criterion. In relating proce:;s to outcome itis essential to keep- indices of process entirelyseparate from criterion measures of attainment,otherwise the circularity so produced interferes withthe_interpretation of how the various processes andstyles relate to outcome. Only by a_combination ofconceptual_and_ factor_ analysis in scale developmentcan such circularity be avoided.

ALTERING STUDENTS' APPROACHES TO LEARNING*

S'aliO (1975) reported an experiment in whichdetailed factual questions about an article appearedto shift students towards a surface approach to sub-sequent articles. He also showed that questionsabout overall meaning moved some students towards adeep passive a.echnifiedY approach; without makingan impact on the level of understanding reached. Inour questionnaire variant of Marton's original experi-ment we -had shown_how_the content and level of diffi-culty of an article affected the clarity with which

*The research repotted in this section was carriedout by Sarah Morison.

95

112


relationships between process and outcome could bedemonstrated. Finally Fransson (1977) had shown howinterest or perceived relevance affected the approachto reading an article.

These findings suggested that we should extendthe use of the questionnaire variant_of Marton'smethod of research by asking the student volunteerswho had taken the psychological tests to carry out alearning experiment in which both content and -question -type were varied. The materials andinstructions were sent to the_48 students (out of 60)who agreed to continue their involvement with theprogramme beyond what had originally been negotiated.

Each student was sent three_short articlesi eachof dust under 2000 words. The first article was ashortened version of_extracts_from Hoyle's The Ex-

used successfully in the earlierstudy. The second was based on ideas presented byGeoffrey Ashe in his book Camelot and the Vision ofAlbion which described evidende linking the hiSteti-cal Arthur with an iron-age fort at South Cadbury.The final article was a summary of research on stylesof learning and thinkingi intended to have personalrelevance to the students as it mentioned some of thetests they had taken during the previous year andprovided_the rationale_for_our research programme.

Students were assigned randomly to two con-ditions. One _group was given entirely specifidquestions on ideas or facts presented in the article.The other group was given a general question askingthem to explain to a friend' what the article wasabout. Both groups were asked after each articleto suggest implications stemming from what they hadread, and after the final article both types ofquestion were given to all the students.

Both groups were also asked to ccmmant on theirapproaches to reading and how the questions askedhad_influenced their strategies in tackling thesecond and third articles; They were also given aset of self-ratings about each article to indicateto what extenti on a five-7point scalei they werefamiliar with the ideas; found the article interest-ing or difficult, were able to concentrate, felttired4 found illustrations_usefuli and couldremember the main theme and the details. Theinstructions to the students asked them to read eacharticle on a separate day; The instructions wereas follows.

"Read this article carefully in your own timein the same way as you would if you were preparingfor an examination. Take notes if you would do so

96

113


normally, but you will not be_allowed to use themafterwards. When_you have fihiShed reading thearticle put it badk into the_envelope together withyour notes and reseal it Take a break of 20minutes then open (the next) envelope and answer _the questions in it, putting the questionnaire backin the envelope- afterwards:"

The general question was coded as before withdichotomous codes (1,0) on five indices of outcomedescribing whether or not the Student had(a) reinterpreted, reorganized or integrated

material(b) mentioned an above average number of main points(c) understood the author's message(d) used evidence appropriately(e) US-ed irrelevant facts

An overall indication of a deep outcome_ was_Obtained by- calculating (a) + _(b) + (c) + (d) - (e)on a scale-of -1 to 4 (although no One obtained ascore of -1).

__The answers to the specific questions wereScored right or wrong in two groups - essentialpointsandincidental facts; while the 'implications'question was coded on a .four -point SCAle.

Approaches to reading the first article_ werecoded as before with three indices of deep, but ihthis case with four criteria of -a surface approach.Criteriabf a deep approach were _

a clear intention to try to UhderStandan intention to integrate separate partsan intention to reach own conclusion or to usepersonal experience

A surface_approach was indicated bybeing inflUenced by the anticipated form. of thequestions to concentrate on either -(a) thegeneral themes,_or (b) the detailSskimming through the article with likely questionsin mind relying on memorization

The questions about changes in approach whenreading the second and third articles Were boded inways which distinguished various reasons for_analtered strategy_- in particular the types ofquestions experienced; the differeht nature of thearticle, greater or less interest or familiarity;

In this exploratory_study only simple analysescould_really be justified. Four main questions wereconsidered. Was_there evidence that the,four groupsof students; as originally classified by the inventory

114

97


of approaches t,.) studying, were categorized indifferent_way. in_this experiment? Did studentsshow cons.;.stenLy in the outcomes reached for_aIlthree articles? To what extent did the studentappear to be influenced by the_experimental treat-ment? How did students describe their reactionsto the different articles?

APPROACHES AND OUTCOMES OF CONTRASTING GROUPS OFSTMENTS

Table 6.4 summarizes the outcomes and approachesOf the four groups described in Chapter 5 - strategicimeaning, reproducing, and unmotivated - in terms ofthe percentage_of_occasions on which they had beencoded into each of the categories. The differencesare distinct and to a large extent: make good sense.

In terms of outcome; the_meaning-oriented_grouphave the highest percentage of responses classifiedas showing reorganization or personal reinterpre-__tation of the material and the lowest percentage ofirrelevant detail. The reproducing group containsfour times as many instances of irrelevant detail but .

is also coded as having an 'above average' number ofmain points almost twice _as frequently. These twogroups also differ markedly in the proportions ofstudents who provide a 'good answer' to the impli-cations question;

In terms of approach, the individual indicesdiffer in their discrimination between these groups.The meaning orientated group have far_and away_thehighest percentage of students classified has havinga 'clear intention to understand' and 'an intentionto reach their own conclusion or to use personalexperience'. While the reproducing group do havethe highest percentage of each of_the three indicesof a surface approach, the main difference is in thetendency to try to extract specific facts by skimming.Although the strategic group also uses this tactic,these students apparently do so without relying tothe same extent on memorization The strategicgroup showed a very high success rate in understand-ing the author's messagei combined with very littleuse of irrelevant detail; Most correct answers tospecific questions were given by the meaning and thestrategic groups; while the fewest came from thereproducing group. The unmotivated group didreasonably well on the general question, but wereremarkably unsuccessful in recalling incidental facts.

98

115

Table 6.4 PERCENTAGE OP STUDENTS IN EACH CATEGORY OF OUTCOME AND APPROACH

Croups WON

Genetal

Approach

Specific Deep

cations

Surface

Interpret Under- Detail Good Incidental/ Under- Personal Skimming Memorize

stood Answer ESSential stand

Points EvidenceIntegrate Questions

(N)

Strategic (12)54 88 17

39 46

49

Meaning (8) 57 60 13 631 41

63 33

89 25

25 75 25

63 88 88 13 38

91 25 75

Reproducing (9) 48 58 55 60 44 17 78 44

39

68 53

Unmotivated (19)50 . 84 34

5042 50

83 33 78

45 58 42

91 16

(Nom the percentages are taken across all three articles read)

58 37

68


EVIDENCE OF CONSISTENCY OF OUTCOME AND APPROACH

Looking at the codings of the responses to thegeneral_question, it was possible to discover onhow many bccasions_students were put into the samecategory fdt all three artieleS; thUS providingevidence about consistency of outcome. Thisanalysis could; of course; only be carried out forthe 24 students who were given the general questioneach time. There_ were five codings made for eachStudent -and thUS there were 120 betaSiOng when thteeiduntical_codings could_be made. By chance a runof three identical dichotomous codings would befOUnd on only 15occa8ions.Inreality threeidentical codings were observed on 49 occasions and4 other times the difference was only a single'undecided' code,There ishereconsiderable evi-dence of consistency in the outcomes_of readingatticlea; even under Conditions deliberately arrangedto encourage change. Neverthelessi it is possibleto point to the fact that different outcomes arefoundmore frequently (56%) tnan consistent ones,and evidence of deliberate changes in approaches canbe found in the students' open-ended responses.

Evidence_of consistency was already implicit inTable 6;4-where there was a good deal of- agreementbetween the assignment to groups on the basis ofinventory scores and the_codings made of the approachand outcome in the learning experiment: The agree-ment is all_the more striking -when it_is_recognizedthat the inventory was given a full twelve monthsbefbre the experiment was carried out.

CORRELATIONAL ANALYSES TO IDENTIFY CONSISTENCY

Table 6.5_presents the correlation coefficientsbetween the codings made of outcome. The stabilityof the values presented_is low_due_to the smallsample (N=23 for each group;_ one student had incom-_plete data); It is clear that there are some markeddifferences between articles. The historicalarticle showed lower and 1088 consistent relation-ships with the oth -'r two articles,_while the corre7lations between 'The Expanding_Universe' and 'StudyStyles' were quite high and; With One exception(implicatiens)_consistent. _It_seems_that theimplications question proved unsatisfactory asStUdentS interpreted it in different_WayS_inrelation to the different types of article.

Table 6,6 shows the extent of consistency be-tween the various measures of outcome derived from

100

117


table 6.5 LORRLLAIIONS SE1WEEN THE SAM CATFCORIES OFOUTCOME FOR DIFFERENT ARTICLES

CategoriesExpanding Universe Arthilt'S

Camelot

A:thur's Lodrhirig LeaChingCamelot Styles Styles

4:W:;t:OH

Personal Reinterpretation 11 20 -10Main Points 04 65 39UndetStood -16 26 -08Used Evidence 13 40 OpIrrelevant Detail 23 24 57

--.----------Essential Points -09 31 -13Incidental Facts 21 37 38Implications -20 -30 -26

(deeiffia1 points omitted)

the 'Learning Styles! article; for Which a total setof variables is available for all 46 students withcomplete_data. Given the uncertain nature ofimpression marking, correlations between differentindices of deep outcome would not -be expected torise much_above; say; 0;25 or 0L30; inthe_completeset of correlations some negative correlations_mightbe expected (for example. between- indices Of A deepoutcome and both irrelevant detail_andincidentalfacts) nIh practice rather more negative corro-latiens emerged than. anticipated:

The highest positive correlations came betweenthree of the deep outcome categories (main points,understood and used evidence), as was hoped, but itwas not expected to find such_high correlations be-tween these categories_and 'irrelevant detail' and'incidental facts These latter correlations implythat a majority of the students were relying onoperation learning in seeking understanding, and thisis confirmed by the negative correlations between'pot-citil reinterpretation' and -all of the ottercategories with the exception of,_'understood'. Thispattern of correlations is in line with the two

101.

118


factors within deep approach and outcome reportedin the earlier study (Table 6.3). _It was thUS_decided to run an exploratory factor analysis on the'Study_Styles',article with the complete set Ofvariables (including self - ratings and approaches)ialthough the sample_size (N-,48) hardly warrants the

use of this technique.

Table 6;6 INTERCORRELATIONS BETWEEN CATEGORIES OF OUTCOMEFOR 'LEARNING STYLES' ARTICLE

C:itc of Les MP U UE

Personal Reinterpretation 39 OS 14

Main POints * 40 39

Understood i, 37

Used Evidence *

ID EP IF IMP

20 23 06 2163 05 43 20

26 34 38 26

31 05 49 19

Irrelevant Detail * 09 46 06Essential Points * 15 07IncidOeitn1 Fitts * 28implications *

(decimal points omitted)

Table 6.7 shows the five-faCter solution._ Thefirst two factors show the distinction within deepoutcome already seen in the pattern of-correlations.Factor I_is the clearest deep outcome facter and thisis also linked to self-rating.:. of 'finding thearticle interesting' and 'easy to concentrate', to-gether with an intention to reinterpret. Aceerdihgto the tedings of outcome, however this intentionhas not been fulfilled. Factor II shows a highpositive loading on the remaining main category ofoutcome, 'persehal reinterpretation', but it -isnegatively related to 'main points' and to theintention to 'concentrate on urdc-standiug'. The'personal reinterpretation' coded !tere thus seems toimply at most a 'deep passive' approrachi_perhapsverging on casual globetrotting (note the use ofillustrations). Factors IIIand IVarethe twomain 'approach' factors with what appears to be_aclear stylistic difference between them. Factor IIIiWith its highest loadings indicating the use Of pet-sonal experience, as opposed to skimming for likely

102 119

Approaches to Reading Academic ArtiClOS

Table 6.7 FACTOR ANALYSIS OF OUTCOMES, SELF RATINGS-ANDAPPROACHES ON 'LEARNING STYLES' ARTICLE (N=48)

CategoriesFactors

II III IV V

Qucaion

Persotlai Reinterpretation 59Main Points 58 55Understood 45USed EVidenee 59Itrolevant Detail 43

Essential Points 34 411i-c/dental Facts 70implications 42

Interesting 59 (29)FaMiliar 30 44Easy to UnderstandEasy to Concentrate 43 35 37Net Tired 36 44Illustrations Useful 51Rommtbered Theme

91Remembered Details 47 57

Appmacn

Concentrating_on Understanding 54Intehdihg to Reinterpret 39 (26) 35Using Personal Experience 62Looking for Theme 59LOOking for Details

75Skimming 44 73Memorizing 45 32

Decimal points and most loadings below .30 omitted

103


questions or relyiny_on memorization, can be des-,bribed as deep hoiism; Factor IV,implies a surfaceapproach relying on looking for details rather than _

for the themei but the_positive loading on 'essentialpoints' rewinds us of the efficacy of operE.tionlearning for some students.

EFFECTS OF THE EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS

The main differences between this experimentand theprevious one were the use of different typesof question and of contrasting articles. Table 6.8presents a summary of the categorizations ofstudents under the two experimental conditions(general question about meaning and specific quest-ions about detail) by article.

The initial impact of the first general questionon the meaning group seems, at first sight, to havebeen_as intended with a rise in the percentagereaching a deep outcome_and, a drop in_'irrelevantdetail' in relation to 'Arthur's Camelot'. But _

this pattern is reversed with the 'Learning Styles;article and the meaning group his an outcome almostidentical to the detail group. If there has beenany general effect at all of the experimental con-_ditionsi it seems to have been to push students underthe detail condition towards remembering incidentalfacts, yet being better able to_discuss the impli-cations. However the large differences betweenarticles (with the historical article again beingmost different) suggest that the effects of experi-encing different types of question has been slight.

In order to explore this negative finding morefully we need to look at the comments made by studentsabout their approaches;_ After answering the 'Ex-panding Universe' article, there were marked differ-ences in some_of the problems reported by studentsunder the different experimental_conditions. Bychance, as an initial strategy, far more Of thedetail group had concentrated on remembering thetheme than the meaning group (42% compared with 17%).The general question created fewer problems than thespecific questions ,(46% had -'no problem' comparedwith 21%). Half the detail group reported diffi-culty in remembering details because they had concen-trated on the theme.

The meaning groupi with only one exception,maintained their_initial approach after_experiencingthe first general question, while 46% of the detailgroup changed or_attempted to change. This greateremphasis on detail seems to have helped this group

104

-121

1-1

0

Table 6,8 PERCENTAGE OF MINTS CATEGORIZED AS WWERING CORRECTLY OR IN DEPTH BY EXPERIMENTALCONDITION All ARTICLE

CategoryExpanding Universe Arthur's Camelot

Learning Styles

Meaning Detail Meaning Detail Meaning Detail(N=24) (Nt24) (N;24) (N:24) (N:24) (N:24)

Deep Outcome to_Geteral

Question ,(gut of four

Categories)

Irrelevant Detail

ESSential Points

Incidental Facts

'Good Answer' on

Implications

61

42

90

51

74

21

611

86

II0

çt

n-

:1

0

PL4

58 56 5

0

29

88

45

25

83

56

42 25 33 29 29 38

122


Lii answering gaesiLons on the final article. 71%(CL; 38%) experienced no problems; while the meaninggroup reported difficulties in remembering detailsbecause they had concentrated on the theme (46% cf.

The failure of the initial analysis to detectevidence of change can now be attributed Lo the factthat a majority of all these students seem moreready to concentrate on the theme rather than on thedetails: BUt it also seems that the detail groupmanaged to concentrate on remembering specific fadtSwithout sacrificing their overall grasp of the mean-ing. This can be seen in several of the commentsmode by students which describe how they had readthe article through as a whole_first;_and_then_gonethrough concentrating on remembering details whichthey thought might come up in the questions. ItshoUld not be surprising, perhaps, to find studentsalter Lwo years in higher education adapting readilyLo specific demands without sacrificing_understand-

However, the general impression left fromreading the answers was that few of the students hadgone beyond a deep passive approach to these articlesbut again comments suggested that this in itselfmight have been_a tactic based on an evaluation ofthe amount of effort that they were prepared to putinto the experiment, or that these particulararticles merited.

Although no systematic qualitative analysis waspossiblei given the rather brief comments made bymost students, illustrative descriptions of _

approaches are worth recording. In particularthese show something of_the_ithematized1 _interpre-tation of learning developed in higher education, andof the ways in which students recognize that theirapproaches are affected by assessmentdemands; subjectcontent; and level of interest.

106

"I began to read the article and knowing_I wasto be questioned afterwards, I was immediatelyaware of examples and figures._ I_noted thesebefore reading on, but found that distracting.So stopped taking notes and read through thearticle twice. Then I took notes again; butonly when I understood the concept. Thenwondered if questions would want facts or ex-planation too many numbers to keep in my head;(found the simpler illustrations eg. grape-fruits; bees,_ much easier to remember thanmillions and billions) so I memorized a coupleof important numbers and reread the theories.

1.23


"The LALLur wore so clearly explained that I hadno difficulty understanding theM and being ableto explain them to myself verbally. I did -notattempt to memorize themor concentrate hard onthem. They were Straightforward, despite mybeing_completely_ignorant of the subject;

sketchyketchy notes on the theories bUt didnotre -read them haVing written them down. Mostofthenumbers had jumbled themselves up bythis time glanced at the notes on the numbersthen put them in the envelope; thinking furtherreading would confuse me;"Mcpand'in,; Un.r3e, ULtaI ii ;11.:g;: on deep appPoach based

;;OP,!;;; d6,(11Z condition)

"I expected a few factual questions (eg.tanceones)i therefore made notes of th-686.Made a note of the content of the main theory -expansion(bound_to_ask something on it).Itowever _you wanted a ree-ol.1 Of the article sowhen I did this I also remembered things notinthearticle but ones which_jogged my memory(eg. parsecs = light years) which made me_remember other related figures. My generalpl4n was to note the important ideaS, figures,metaphors from each section.

I generally read artic108 in thiS way. I tryto obtain a prJcis of the original. If_ articlesare_just a string of paragraphs without headings.l_find I try to ihClUde tee Much of the original.If it is sub7headedi_ I just note_the_heading anda few key words_. This works well if I'Minterested in the article and my concentrationis __Otherwise I stick to a lengthypr6cis approach so that I have a good copy forrevision purposes.

The problem I would expect it that I'm bound byfacts. Revision would be based on my strengthof memory. Fortunately it werkt well, but Ihave to work hard before exams, testsi etc.It's a swot approach largely; - I would like tobe able -to just write a page Of notes (3-4 pares.)and 'believe' I have everything there. I_suppose this reflects a lack of under-Standingin some way. Nonetheless, my approach worksfor me but from my reading and study habits itis not particularly recommended. I think Ineed a better plan to get the most out of articles;(E±p;.cznding Universei student high on suaTace approach;meaning condition);

124. .

107

Approaches to Reading Academic Artitles

108

"1 concentrated more on the details since thearticle did not seem to be introducing--- new con-cepts in the way the first one was. Theywere more_logical and easier to grasp (forinstance I find it easier to understand how todate a piece of pottery than to understand howa star is formed); In this article the detailsdid seem more important, dates and names werefar more vital Lo the theme, since the essenceOf thiS article was the use_of these details tosolve a problem. In the first article detailstended to be simply to help you understandsomething better, such as how great -a distanceactually was, the details could be disregardedand you'd still have your own representation ofhow great that distance was. But in thisarticle if you disregard the detail (eg. thepresence of Tintagel pottery) you lose_a vitalclue Co the date and consequently you lose apart of the central theme;"

Lot, e tted;olt low on both deep and ourface

t.a! t lea)

"Generally I go through slowly, often readinga paragraph over more than once if necessary,take notes on details, and prompts to (indicate)lines of thought. I basically try to under-stand the passage and get the idea 'mechanism'behind (it). If I can get that and learn thefactual details, I can usually reconstruct thecontent.

As a scientist I generally expect questionsrequiring detail and so I tend to take note ofsuch_things and just try to get the 'feel' Ofthe background. It is what I want out of anarticle (rather than its type) which dictateshow I read it.

(This article was) psychology, which havingdone in Part I, I usually avoid like the plague!It was necessary to force myself to concentrateon it, and as you can see from the answers, I

haven't done so well (and knowit!) I find itdifficult to find a way to tackle this kind ofarticle; If_I'm not interested in a subjectit is rather doomed.

(I had a feeling that_the_style of questionsmight change! I don't think anything could

125

Npproaches to Reading Academic Articles

alter the wty f rcad the article!

"I think I concentrated more on this One be-cause the material wasn't as familiar as thefirst one. It I get into it doesn'trealty matter as far as questions are concerned(Whether theyaredetailed or not). The_com-bined effort_ of memory concentration, andthinking enable me to answer your rather simpletask,"

;::.;;I 0,2 :,:t1V.(Z(...12.,

I thought I'd have to explain in more detailabout the theories ... and I'm sure this in-

the way I picked tip infOrMatiOn.skimmed over what I thought was irrelevant andwouldnt be asked questions -on if I (wasreadingl for an essay I would read it with thetitle of the essay in_mindi only picking 613related points. Therefore what influandea thyapproaches depends on my reason for reading thearticle."(IV.17,4mh:ni

"I tried to pick up the names because there wereso many I felt sure they'd be questionedi but Icouldn:_t remember them very well couldn'tkeep my interest or concentration ... as I wasn'tall that stimulated_by_the article. (The mainproblem was) that through trying to remattibet; itseemed to help me forget. I was correct aboutthe type or questions_being asked but feltunsure -of my_ answers."Cl C11,1,!1.00

"(This time) I concentrated very.hard and keptgoing over_ paragraphs trying to work it out inrelation to what I knew and to the experimentsyou had given }is - to try_and find out whichcognitive style I had Why? It was veryinteresting and I feel I took it in better thanthe others. I don't think I will forget -themain ideas; whereas I had already alMbst fbt-gotten the other two I could see its rele-vance to my own situation."(1,:aeni.n3 :;ttietc.nt low on Lott <t cn and oiciTze,2,

coed ti-On; -abbv,2 t;2r,7 csavT Lac )

126109


These quolaLLons indicate some of the ways inwhich the context and content of learning influencestudents' approaches to studying. These commentscame from a somewhat narrow experimental situation.The next three chapters report the attempts _to lookat studying in its broad natural context and todiscover what aspects of departmental organizationarc _most likely to affect students' approaches tostudying.

127110

Chapter 7

IDENTIFYING STUDENTS' PERCEPTIONS OF DEPARTMENTS

INTRODUCTION: THE STUDY OF DEPARTMENTS AS LEARNINGCONTEXTS

There are good reasons why a research programmedealing with British students' appreadhes to learn-ing should want to examine the academic departments*in which they study. On_theoretical grounds, ithas been argued that curricultm (what is to betaught and learnt)f_pedagogy (how what_is to belearnt is transmitted) _and assessment (what counts__as valid realization of knowledge on the part of thelearner) are_those,components of the academicment which are most intimately related to learning(Bernstein, 1971). British university and_poiy-technic departments possess a high degree of autonomyin the organisation of courses, teaching and_assess-Ment.__ Moreover; European universities - unlikeAmerican_ones_- are relatively heMegeneousinstitutions in_whichmost students have little con-tact with more_than one or -two academic departments:Although many AMerican studieshave comparedinstitutional environments_ inhigher education (See,e.g.; Pace, 1967; Stern, 1970; Petersen, 1965;Long; 1978); the relevant_focus of analysis -inBritain_is probably the main discipline StUdentSstudy or the one department in which they spend mostof their time,-rather than the university as a where.

On a conceptual level, a number of distinctionsbetween departmental contexts might be drawn. Adepartment could be characterized in terms of itsrelative commitment to teaching, to research and

* 'Department' is used here in the Sense of 'smallestbaSit academic unit`? -it includes units_caliedfaculties; schools; course teams; etc. in Some insti-tutions.

111

Identifying Students' Perceptions of Departments

scholarship, ou Lo technology (translation oftheoretical ideas into practice) _(Boeller and Kogan,1980). The structure of knowledge in the maindiscipline the department is concerned with isanother possible analytic category to what extentis the knowledge studied relativistic and contextual,or absolute, cumulative,_and sequential? (see e.g.,Hajnal, 1972; Schwab, 1964). Other distinctionswhich have been suggested include the cohesiveness ofcurriculum content (Becher and Kogan, 1980), the _

degree of control over what may and what may not beLearnt and taught; and the strength_of boundarymaintenance between areas of knowledge in thedepartment (Bornstein, 1971). The perceived'quality' of a department (either in terms of itsreputation as a research unit or in terms of itsstudents' evaluations) is another possible basis forcategorization. Each of these distinctions mightbe thought to have correlates in the teaching, ass'ess-me nt, and course structure of a department_- theformality or informality of teaching methods, thespecialization or interdisciplinarity of the courses,the openness of students' choices over content; theuse of final examinations or continuous assessment,and so on.

No empirical investigation, however, has examinedall or even a majority of_these possible conceptualdistinctions. Indeed, there are remarkably fewresearch studies of academic departments as such.Two groups of related investigations throw_somelight on departmental differences. The first set ofstudies has looked at the cultures of academic dis-ciplines in terms of theoretical differences betweenareas of knowledge and staff and student attitudes.The most pervasive difference identified in themodern literature is that between arts and socialscience departments, on the one hand, and sciencedepartments on the other: a version of the familiar'two cultures' of C.P. Snow. In fields of studyvariously labelled paradigmatic, formal, or codified -including the sciences - lecturers are more formalin their teaching methods and less "permissive" intheir attitudes to students and student learningthan arts teachers: they are more likely, forexample, to see assessment_as a way of motivatingand classifyinc students than as a way of providingthem with feedback _(Roe, 1956; Gamson, 1966;Thompson at 41, 1969; Wilson et al, 1975); Corres-ponding differences have been observed in thestudents attracted o arts and science departments,differing student orientations and personality

112

.12-9


variables boln,i y!:Iomatically related to field ofStudy. Arts_and Jocial science departments appearto attract -more nonconformist, radical,'perSbn-orientated', neurotic, flexible, individualistic,and divergent students; scionce_department8 arepopulated more_heavily With stable, 'thing-orientated'convergent students; _practical and applied fieldsnot surprisingly contain more students who arevocationally-orientated.

The second group of studies has not been directlyconcerned with learning contexts. These investi-gations haVe, however, identified what seems likelyLoloeanother dimension -of departmental contexts:students' evaluations of teaching. The studiesreVeal Many similarities in the components studentsuse to assess the perceived quality of teaching.Kulik and MeKeathie (1975) reviewed eleven factoranalytic studies of ratings of lecturers and identi-fied considerable overlap in the factors_discovered.The lettUrer's skills as a teacher, his rapport Withstudents, the amount of structure in the Courses,and the amount of work students were expected totaCkle,were common components Other investigations(e.-g. Payne and Hobbs; 1974: Entwistle and Parcyi1971: Brennan andPercy,_1977: Amir and Krausz,1970 have noted the importance to Stlidents'evaluations of lecturers' concern for student learn-ing, the amount of _choice available over method andcontent of learning, social relationships betweenstudents; interpersonal relationships between staffand_studentsi and clearness. of grading procedures.Taken together these investigations suggest thatteaching and courses -are evaluated by students indifferent countries and disciplines in btbadlysimilar ways; and indicate that_it_may be possibleto characterize departments in terms of students'evaluations of the quality of the learning environ-ment they provide.

Studies of academic departments thet801V08 havebeen few and far between. An early study whichsuggested that -the intellectual climate -or -ethos ofindividual_ departments in the same field Might varywas carried out at Birmingham_University (Beard, Levyand Maddox, 1962). Two engineering departments werefound to differ in the demands they made on theirableSt students. Concommitant differences in studentattainment and attitudes to the subject were dis-covered.

Gaff et al (1976) conducted a promising study---of students in four departments at a Dutch university.The aUthors used a questionnaire survey to examine

113

130

WentiCying Students' Perceptions of Departments

'atmosphere' in the departments, and concluded that:

"Although there are some similarities among thefour departmentsi_it_is_apparent that theyconstitute markedly different learning environ-_counts. The pressure-packed, heavily prescribednature of chemistry; the relaxed somewhat un-certain climate in law; the memory-oriented,highly structured environment in medicine; andthe free-wheeling, independent atmosphere ofpsychology - these distinctive 'atmospheres''of each educational environment_are apparentfrom this initial analysis." (Gaff at a1,1976).

A cluster analysis was then performed to_identi-fy groups of items which were answered in similarways. Ton scales_were derived, ranging from theamount of time students felt they must spend incourse- related activities, through the personalattention given to students in the different depart-ments, to the extent to which the course programmeswere prescribed by staff or defined by students.The soles were used to identify educational_'problemsin the departments, and the authors concluded thatsteps needed to be taken to offer more attractivelearning environments if the departments were not tosuffer high_rates_of student attrition; __Hermans (1979has since identified similar dimensions of_depart-mental environments at another university in theNetherlands.

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN DEPARTMENTAL OR COURSE CONTEXTSAND STUDENT LEARNING

Gaff et al remark that the effectiveness oflearning in the departments they studied might berelated to the type of learning context provided.How does the context of a department relate tolearning? One obvious parallel is between thedifferent styles of learning described by Pask (seechapter 2, pp 22-28) and the differing demands ofarts and science departments. Simply put, compre-hension learners_are likely_to be attracted todepartments in which knowledge is most amenable topersonal interpretation (which are mostly arts andsocial science departments), while operation learn-ers will probably gravitate towards departments inwhich the knowledge is hierarchically structured andrelated to accepted paradigms_ (i.e. science depart-ments). Similarly, it is likely that sciencedepartments reward and encourage operation learning,

114

131

Identifying Students' Perceptions of DepartmentS

arts and soc1,11::eichce_contexts comprehension_learning. On the other hand; there may alSO bedifferences within subject areas: different depart-Ments of engineering, for example; may favourdifferent_ styles of learning.

AnOther intriguing possible relationship isthat_between the characteristics of a department -its size; commitment to teaching, staff-studentratio, its assessment and teaching methods; and soon_- and the_quality and quantity of its students'learning; Perhapssurprisingly; research has notdemonstrated any connection between objectivemeasures of learning contexts in higher educationand student learning,___Dubin and Taveggia (1969)found no consistent significant differenteS betWeenteaching methods in relation to student learning.HartnettandCentra (1977) used criterion measuresachievement tests to assess departMental 'effective-ness' in a studyofAmerican universities. Theythen attempted to find correlates of effectiveness.The analysis took into account various character-iStitS of the departments, including size; staff-student ratio; staff interest in teaching (self-rated) and Salaries; students pre-entry levels ofachievement were controlled. Although largedifferences in effectiveness were found betweendepartments teaching the same disciplines; no factorsconsistently associated with effettiVeneSs were dis-covered; The authorsspeculated that student -per-ceptions- may be more-- important in the explanationof effectiveness; Student perceptions of depart-mental quality do not, however, appear to be _

associated with other measures of departmentaldifferences; Gaff et al (19761, for example;found that student -staff ratio and sice were notconnected with students' desctiptiOhS And evaluationsof the departments in their study.

_There is some evidence from the work on StUdentS'approaches to learning carried bUt in Sweden andelteWhete_(see chapter 2)_ that levels of approach andoutcome are related to the organisation of teaching,courses; and assessment. Fransson, for example;(Fransson, 1377) -has shown that deep approaches arefunctionally related to interest in the learningmaterial, and surface approaches to threateningassessment conditions, in one-of the experiments atGothenburg; Laurillard (1978) shows how students'approaches to learning tasksin_their everydaystudies are associated with their perceptions of thepurposes of the task. It would seem worthwhile toexplore the deduction from these findings that

115

-432


academic departments, particularly as perceived bytheir students; can encourage different levels ofapproach. There is certainly no shortage ofhistorical and theoretical argument to support thispossibility._ Writers as diverse as Newman (1852);Pattison (1876), Veblen (1918), Whitehead (1932) andRogers (1969) have variously argued that rigid assess-ment systems, impersonal staff-student relationshipsand lack of choice over method and content havedamaging effects on the quality of students' learn-ing experiences, while commitment to teaching amongststaff and freedom in learning facilitate studentunderstanding; -

There is also empirical evidence to suggest thatassessment; teaching; and course structures in aca-demic departments are critical variables in the_determination of student learning, and that studentperceptions are a useful way to measure these con-textual characteristics. Becker et al (1968)studied Kansas University students' perceptions oftheir academic experiences. _Using the sociologicaldevice of "perspective" (consisting principally, inthis case; of the students' definition of thesituation: "the ideas describing the character ofsituations in which action must be taken"), theauthors argue that students react mainly to theenvironmental emphasis on grading.

Students learn the requirements of the socialsituation which rewards a high grade-point-averageand turn themselves into the sort of persons theacademic context demands. Grades are described byBeek-et as "the currency of the campus"; High gradesin assessment tasks are seen to be the most importantgoals by students; even_though the members of staffdeny they are so crucial. Students come to perceivea conflict between grades and learning and speak ofusing strategies to get good grades at the expenseof understanding the material they are expected tolearn. The process of assessment comes to have theunintended consequence of inhibiting rather thanfacilitating learning.

Snyder (1971) pursued the perceived conflictbetween manifest and latent functions of assessmenta stage further. He argued (as a result of a studyof students at M.I.T.) that the formal curriculumof universities eMphaS4_SeS academic values: a

problem-orientated outlook, creativity, independenceof thought, originality (c.f; Entwistle and Percy;1971). The hidden curriculum, on the other hand,requires an answer-orientated_outlook; rote learning;and memorization. Research in this country has

116

133

identifying Students' Percepti.ans of DepartMents

uncovered the operation of hidden curricula:Miller and Parlett (1974) noted the 'bureaucratic'assessment systems in some of the university depart-ments they studied; and found that the adademicenvironment defined by examinations in one department10d to Lho_distinctive strategies of adaptationalready, described (chapter 2 , pp12-13). Even thecue-800kihgstudentswere often uncomfortably awaretha.,_the strategies they used - although preddetiveof good degrees - were detrimental to learning.Other Studieshave_explored relationships betweenstudents' attitudes to learning; Student achievement,relationships with staff, and perceived quality ofteaching,__ Ramsden ()976) found that a perceivedlack of any direction or helpfUl guidance by lecturersin an ihdependentstudy_course led to_the developmentof negative attitudes to learning. One studentcommented:

don't think that they haVe really put enoughthOUght into creating learning situations;_think they thought 'It's a good idea,'StUdeht-centred. education: wenn apply it to highereducation'_. But it's not a very stimulatingenvironment; Staff seem to expect studentsto geherate everything they seem to_havethought that students would de things likecoming to them and asking for series of lectures.As I see it; an improved version of the coursewould be -if studentS fitted into projectsgenerated by staff. They_- ought to_take moreinitiatives themselves;.. On an Ordinary course80 per cent of the leCtures may be pretty use-leSS, but at least they can be a source ofstimulation";

When more guidance was provided in subsequentyears of the course; although no compromises wereMade about the amount_of choice given to students;their attitudes to learning and to the departMentimproved; Students in Miller and Parlett's study(1974) spoke -of the way in which a_quite differentkind of context - impersonal, highly fOrthalized, with'bureaucratic' staff-student_ relationships_- couldhave similar effects in discouraging learning.Pascarella and Terenzini (1977; 1978) studied theassociation between student- teacher informal_relationships and educational outcomes. IhferMalrelationships were defined as out-of-class; not_formally arranged_contacts; for any purpose. Apositive correlation between theSe relationships

117

134

id,,ntifying Students' Perceptien8 of Departments

and three dependen( variabLes7 academic performance,personal development, and intellectual development -

was found. The first of these variables was a con-

ventional assessment (students' performance inexaminations and assignments as measured by the

department); the others were students' self -ratings.Students who interacted more with teachers were al8Ofound to be less likely to Withdraw before the end

of their courses. The authors include in theirdiscussion of these results, however, a caveat onthe direction of causality in these relationships.

Recently; Fearn-Wannan (1979) has_attempted todevelop a path__analysis model to explain Australianstudents' performance in chemistry. StUdentS' per-ceptionSoftheit lecturers' behaviour and satis-faction with the teaching were found to be small,

bUt Significant,. mediating variablesin the deter-mination of performance. Research -also exists whichseems tentatively to support some of the assertionsof writers like Newman and Rogers, to the_effect that'earning in highereducation is facilitated whenstUdent8 are permitted greater freedom over methodsand contentofstudy, and that negative attitudesare developed when choice is perceived to be absent.Brennan and Percy (1977), reporting the_analysiS ofdata from a large7scale investigation ofstudents in

Lnylish universities and colleges, remark on the dis-junction (noted also by Becker et al, 1968 and

Snyder, 1971) between the avowed aims of lecturersto promote 'Critical thinking' and the relativelyfew opportunities students said they were given to

work in ways which would enable the aim to be

realized. Moreover:

118

"It seems ciear_from our research that studentsin allfieldsof study believe that they wouldlearn more, and enjoy__learning more, if theyhad greater control over the pace_of theirlearning; morechance to determine the subjectMatter of their courses and_were leSS rigidlyinhibited by traditional conceptions of dis-ciplinary boundariesandwhat constitutes the

pi-61)er study of a particular subject. StUdentSvery often made comments describing the 'mostsatisfying aspect" of_their course as the workwhich ihave been allowed to do myself' andwere highly critical of a curriculum structureWhiCh imposed logic and sequence of learningon them which they felt was less educational andless motivating than one suggested to them bytheir own deVeloping_intellectual interests".(Brennan and Percy, 1977);

135


_Subsequently Porby and Ramsden (1980) investi7-gated two independent study schemes in a polytedhni-cand a university; It was found that most of thestudents who were interviewed in the study valuedvery highly the opportunity to work independently,that some students would have left_university if theyhad not been able to use the independent study pro -grammes to pursue their own interests, and that thestandard of students'work_produced in both schemeswas generally acceptable and in some cases outstand-ing.

IMPLICATIONS OF PREVIOUS WORK FOR THE PRESENT STUDY

Studies ofacademic departments as leathihq_con7te;:ts are unusual and feW of the possible discussionssuggested thebretiCally_have been explored-: whatdoes seem to be clear from the work which has beendone on academic contexts in higher education is thatstudents' perceptions and evaluations are associatedwith their approaches to studying,_whilesystematicdifferences exist in_the environment provided by artsand science departments. _ Little has beendene_todisentangle the effects of different subject areasand perceived 'quality' of departments or courses onstudents' approaches. Limitations of time and re-sources in the programme meant that all_the possibledistinctions between departments which have beensuggested_could not be examined._ It was decided;in view of the clear_ importance of these variablesin earlier investigations, to concentrate in_par-ticular on students' perceptions_of disciplinary andOtbet differences in the departments in which theystudied. However; exploratory work on definingdepartmental environments was carried out in thepreliminary stages of the programme, and this is des-cribed below.

PRELIMINARY WORK

During the first year of the programme, anumber of interviews were held with staff and studentsin two university_departments. One of the purposesof these semi-structured interviews was to see whetherdifferences in departmental learning contexts couldbe identified. Ten social science staff, thirteensocial science students, three_applied science staff,and nine applied science students were interviewed.The staff were asked about their aims as teachersithe - structure Of their courses,_how they thoughtStudents tackled the learning tasks they were set,

119

Identifying StUdents' Perceptions of Departments

their perceptions di differences between students andthe reasons for their success or failure, and thekind§ of contact they had with students, Thestudents were asked, inter-ala, about the character-istics of the courses; teaching and assessment in

their department. Specific questions were-putabout the content of lectures, seminars, and tutor-ials, and about the student's relationship withmembers of staff.

The staff interviews were complemented by astudy of course documents in the two departments.These- included recent examination and test papers,syllabuses, and course handbooks outlining the secondyear courses for students. It was hoped that thesedocuments might provide 6, source from which an under-standing of the context of the department might begainecL

The interviews revealed that students in bothdepartments used similar constructs to describe theenvironments in which they were learning. Theseconstructs were consistent with previous researchon students' perceptions of departmental environments

(c. f. Gaff et al; 197) . _Particularly importantto students were the effects of their lecturers: the

extent to which they seemed to encourage learning,lectured effectively, and offered help_ with studyproblems. Assessment methods and workload were, alsoimportant to Students in -both departments; althoughthey were seen rather differently; the appliedscientists felt that a great deal of pressure wasneeded in order to 'get through' the_syllabus, whilethe- social scientists would have preferred a muchlighter workload. Formality or informality ofteaching and learning (e.g. lectures versus discussionmethods) ware also often mentioned by the students.Although students could Identify differences withindepartments on all these criteria (e.g. between theteaching abilities of different lecturers) they werealso able to speak meaningfully about the departmentas a whole; Moreover; students related theirapproaches to studying to a number of characteristicsof the learning context. On occasions the use of adeep or a surface approach was attributed by thestudents to the influence of the environment Theperiodical tests used in the social science depart-ment, for example, seemed to encourage surfaceapproaches. These relationships between perceptionsOf the context and approaches are described in detail

in chapter 8.It was more difficult to discern any clear

patterns in the staff interviews. There were wider

120

137.


differences in the coumlents made by staff in thesame department than by students in_the same depart-ment. It was; however, apparent that many staffhad little knowledge of how students actually tackledlearning tasks. The_study_of course documentsyielded information aboUt the structure of thecourses which was useful briefing material to helpfocus tne student and staff interview questions.But again it was not clear how the information couldbe used to define differences in departMental con-texts. In view of the demonstrated effectivenessof the student interviews, and the_parallels betweenthe results they provided and previous work onacademic learning contexts, it was decided to con-centrate attention on identifying the characteristicsof departmental environments by means of students'perceptions.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE COURSE PERCEPTIONS QUESTIONNAIRE(CPQ) - 1

Similarities in the constructs used by studentsin both departments in_the preliminary interviewssuggested that a questionnaire might be an approp-riate instrument for identifying and comparing thecourse perceptions of larger groups of students ina number of departments. The first task was to_collect together a number_ of items descriptive ofthe context_of learning through students' eyes. Theitems came from two principal sources: the proliM-inary student interviews and an earlier study ofstudents' perceptions of courses (Ramsden, 1976);.The 47 items thus derived were sorted into scalesreflecting hypothesized dimensions by which studentswere expected to characterize their learning environ-ments. An attempt was made to choose scales whichwould be capable of distinguishing between subjectareas or distinguishing between_ departments in otherways (e.g. quality of_the teaching). The componentswere as far as possible related to previous -work inassociated fields. The concept of frame strength(Bernstein, 1971), which refers to the amount ofcontrol over what may and may not be transmitted inthe pedagogical relationship, was incorporated intoone scale; The recurrent notion of "rapport" inteachers' understanding of .students as a componentof,effective teaching (see, e.g., Rogers, 1969,Kulik and McKeachie, 1975; Gaff et al, 1976) wasincluded. Most of the scales used in the mostclosely corresponding study (Gaff et-a-1, 1976) couldbe incorporated, while two of the distinctions

121

38


between subject areas discovered in one_of theAMerican studies of lecturers' perceptions -7 existenceof -a_ paradigm and concern -with application (Biglan;1973) - also found a place;

The items were provisionally grouped into thefollowing eight scales:

Staff understanding: the degree to which studentsfeel their teachers to provide an acceptanti under-standing, and sincere environment for learning;_Sample item:_ "Lecturers here frequently give theimpression that they haven't anything to learn fromstudents". (negatively sc-'red)

Formal relation -ShdpS: the extent of formality or_informality in staff-student relationships. Sampleitem: "Lecturers in this department seem to -go outof their way to be friendly towards students";

Re-levance to work: how Closely students feel thecurriculum relates to vocational requirementS.Sample item: "Much of the work I do here will berelevant to my fUture job".

Frate--S-ttengtht items thought to relate most closelyto the amount of discretion possessed by students inorganizing their learning, selecting its content, andevaluating their progress. Sample item: "The_courses in this department are highly organized".

Formal instruction: the extent to which thedepartment emphasizes individual_learning_or atten7dance at lectUres and classes. Sample item: "A greatdeal of my time is taken_qp_by formal classes(lectures, practice's, tutorials, etc.)".

Workload and External pressure to work:- the extentOf pressure placed on students to conform to deadlinesfor submitted work, and the amount of material whichstudents feel they are expected to cover_in_thesyllabus. Sample item: "There seems to be -toomuch work to get through in the courses here".

Homogeneity-ofthe-dep-artMenti the degree to whichstudents perceive themselves to_be in a departmentin Whith the goals of their study are_clear to themand shared by most other students. Sample item:"It can be hard to know how well youre_doing com-pared to other StUdehtS in this department".(negatively scored)

122

139


The_first version of the CPQ was administeredto second year students in four university depart-ments - psychology, engineering, history, and physicsduring 1977-78. A slightly amended form was used intwo further departments (rnglish and independentstudies) in 1978.

The results were examined by means of itemanalysis: item-scale correlations and percentageagreements to each item were calculated; and alphafactbr analysis (chosen_ because it is specificallydesigned for use in scale development) was carriedout, using the SPSS programs.

All the significant item loadings in the firstfactor were from the original 'staff understanding'scale or the 'formal staff - student relationships'scale. This_factor clearly represents students'perceptions of the quality of teaching and staff-student relationships_in their department. Thdsecond factor appeared to identify a dimension _

relating to the amount of work students are facedwith in their department: with one exception, allthe loadings werefrom the 'workload' or 'externalpressure to work' scales. The third factor combineditems frcm the 'formal instruction', 'relevance towork', and 'strong framing' scales, suggesting thatthis_dimension was one of clearly relevant curriculumcontents transmitted in a formal way.

The next factor was concerned with the socialclimate or amount of interpersonal contact in adepartment. All the significant items were in the'homogeneity' scale:, but referred to aspects ofstudents' relationships connected with their work_.Factbr V was similar to Factor_IV, while the sixthdimension identified clear goals and standards in adepartment's teaching and courses (item_40, forexample, is "You usually_have a clear idea of whereyou're going and of what's expected of you in thisdepartment "). Only two items reached_ significancein the last two factors extracted. The first, item38, was "Students have a great deal of choice overhow they are going to learn in this department";the_second (in Factor VIII) was a relevance to workitem.

A second analysis was run after removing anumber of the weaker items and produced similarresults. The CPQ scales were _now revised to pro-duce eight dimensions (Figure 7.1). The 'staffunderstanding' and 'formal staff-student relation-ships' scales were re-ordered to the two new scalesof_commitment to teaching (dealing mainly with theteaching climate of the department) and relationships

123

_ 14 0


with students Arcfcrring chiefly_tothe quality ofrelatienShipS between students and staff). Itseemed useful to maintain a conceptual distinctionbetween formal teaching methods and_relevancetowork; although theSe two aspects seemed to beempirically inseparable in the factor analyses,- it

might be that other samples would reveal a_differentpicture. The former 'Workload' and 'externalpressure to work'_ scales were combined into oneocale of workload. The earlier 'homogeneity com-ponent was subdivided into two scales: social climateand bleat goals and standards. The former strongframing items were mainly tediStributed_throngh_theOther scales; and_another dimensionoffreedoM inlearning was added; corresponding to Gaff's 'room

for student interests' and 'prescription in the'program'' scales (Gaff et al; 1976).

Fii;tied 7.1 DIMENSIONS OF LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS DERIVED FROMFACTOR ANALYSIS OF THE FIRST VERSION OF THE CPQ

DIMENSIONS MEANING

Rnldtionships withstudents

Commitment toteaching

Workload

ForMal teachingmethods

Vocationalrelevance

Social climate

Clear goals andstandards

Freedom in learning

Closeness of lecturer/student relation-ships; help and understanding shown tostudents.

Commitment of staff_to improving teachingand to teaching students at a levelappropriate to their current understanding.

Pressure placed on students interms ofdemands of the syllabus and assessmenttasks.

Formality or informality of teaching andlearning (6.g. lectures v individualstudy).

Perceived relevance of courses tostudents' careers.

Frequency and quality of academic andsocial relationships between students.

Extent to which standards expetted ofstudents are clear and unambiguous.

AMount of discretion possessed_bystudents in choosing and organisingacademic work.

124

141


Inspection of the CPQ results in terms of thecight_dimensions in Figure 7.I_revealed that studentssaw -the process of learning and teaching in quitedifferent ways in_the six departments (see Ramsden;1979). The engineering department was thought tohave very formal teaching methods, clear goals ofsLudy,__Oign vocational relevance, and an extremelyhigh workload; combined With close and cooperativetelatiOnships between students. Physics studentsalso experienced a fairly formal curriculum, withlittle personal choice over method and content; thepsychologists worked in an environment which wasthought to be friendly and informal, but felt theyhad a hdavy workload and__only a very small amount offreedom over what and how they learnt. EngliSh andhistory students said that much individual study wasrequired in_their departments and that the courseshad little relevance to their future employment;relationships with staff were rather formal_ inhisLory, but informal_ and helpful in English. Inde-pendent studies was thought to havethe_best teaching,and not une xpectedly; the highest- freedom in learningStaff were said to be friendly and to make realOffertS to Understand difficulties students werehiving with their work, although the goals and stan-dards expected of students were perceived to be un-clear and students worked in a poor social climate.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE COURSE PERCEPTIONS QUESTIONNAIRE -

Further interviews of a sample of students whocompleted the CPQ in its original form showed thatthe eight main components of perceived learningenvironments appeared to be stable and replicable(Rpmsden, 1981)i although the relationships withstudents and commitment to teaching scales could notbe bleakly separated, A revised version of thequestionnaire was next constructed, consisting ofeight six -item Sbales. Items in the previousversion which nad not had_ significant loadings inthe factor analysis; or which had low item-scalecorrelations, were deleted; other items were -addedto some scales (especially to the freedom in learningscale) in Order to produce six-item scales in allcases.

This revised CPQ was administered to a sample_of767 StUdents in nine departments at three - universitiesduring 1978. Item analyses largely confirmed theintegrity of the revised scales, although the dis-tinction between the relationships with students andcommitment to teaching scales again failed to emerge

125

142

Identifying StUdehtS' Perceptions of Departments

umpirically. Alpha-iocLoring of the iteMS; extract-ing_eight factors, followed_by oblique rotation,_pro-duced a clearly comprehensible structure: Factor_Irepresented relationships with students plus commit-ment to teaching; Factor II, vocational relevance;Factor Iii, formal teaching; Factor IV, clear goalsand standards; Factor V_i___wor!c.load; Factor VI,social climate; Factor VII, commitment to teachingand relationships with students: Factor VIII, free-dom in learning (together with smaller loadings onseveral relationships with students items), InSpite of large differences between individual_itemsin terms -of percentage agreements f:,r the nine___departments, item -scale correlations did not differgreatly betWeen the departments; suggesting that thedimensions tappet by the scales were generallyapplicable.

Mean scale values for the departments; discip-lines and subject areas were calculated. TheSe COh-firMed thu ability of the questionnaire to identifydifferent departmental learning contexts. Thescales of formal teaching methodsi vocational rele-vance, and (to a lesser extent) clear goals andstandards, social climate, and freedom in learning;distinguished between science_and arts and socialscience departments. The other scales mainlySeemed to differentiate between departments ratherthan discipliheS. The scales were understandablyrelated to each other._ _Freedomin learning; for

was negatively related_to formal teachingmethods (freedom in learning and informal teaching_are both more common in social science and arts), butwas also positively associated with relationshipswith students (i.e. it is also an evalUatiVedimension).

The final research version of the CPQ wasdeveloped by re-ordering the items in the relatiOn-ships with students and commitment to teaching scalesinto two new_scales of good_teaching and openness to -

students: The questionnaire as a whole was_shortenedto 40 items in eight scales :ay deleting the weakestitem in each scale, and some of the items were re-written. _ _

This questionnaire was administered to 2208Students in 66 departments at the same time_asthe___approaches to studying inventory (see chapter 4;_ therelationships between these two sets Of scales WillbeekaMihed in -chapter 9) _It was expected - fromthe earlier work described above - that some of thedimensions of the CPQ would describe differenceSbe-tween subject areas and disciplines; while others

126

143


would represent studoul_s' perceptions of differencesbetween departments. The second group would beevaluations of the learning context in the depart-ments.

On the whole the results confirmed these expect-ations. As will be seen from Table 7.1; formalteaching methodsi vocational relevance, and cleargoals and standards were found to be very muchrelated to subject area much more so; incidentally;than any of the approaches to studying subscales.The highest scores on all three of these CPQ scaleswere found in the engineering departments; and thelowest in the English or history departments. Itwas equally clear that the two evaluative scales;good teaching_and openness to students, were notrelated to subject area. The wide ranges ofdepartmental means within -each discipline on thesescales illustrate how different the departments wereperceived to be by -their students (see Ramsden andEntwistle 1981 for details).

The remaining CPQ scales appear to describedifferences between departments and between subjectareas. For example, although the freedom in learn-ing mean values were higher in arts and_socialsciences than in scientific subjects, the range ofmean scores within each discipline was wide.

Factor analysis of the CPQ_scale totals alorevealed a familiar pattern (Table 7.2). Factor Iis the evaluative dimension suggested in_the inter-view study and the preliminary work, with its highestloadings on good teaching and openness to students.The next highest coefficient in this_factor, forfreedom in learning, invites the explanation thatthis scale is also a component of students'_ evaluationsof departments. Social climate, clear goals andstandards, and workload play lesser parts. Factor IIrepresents differences between subject areas; Thedimension_is one which distinguishes between formalvocational teaching and loosely-structured informalteachingi the former being more common in sciencedepartments and the latter in arts departments.Departments with clear goals and standards; highvocational relevance; and formal teaching methods alsotend to have good social climates. These resultsare consistent with those presented in Table 7.1.

The scales and items of the final version of theCPQ are given in Appendix AS together_with Cronbach0-4.values which_indicate a satisfactory level of internalconsistency for each of the scales. An interpretationof the factor analysis of_scale totals in conjunctionwith conceptual analysis based on the results of the

127

144


Table 7.1 STUDENTS' PERCEPTIONS OF LEARNING CONTESTS IN

DIFFERENT SUBJECT AREAS

Scale Ke=aft _ S. D. Analysis of

(1) Science Variance

(2) Social science F (df 2; 63)

(3) ArtS

Openness to (1) 9.04 1.47

students (2) 9.31 1.82 1.42

(3) 8.36 2.14

Social climate (1) 11.19 1.48

(2) 10.78 1.40 7.64*

(3) 9;33 1.72

Formal teaching (1) 12.17 1.61

methods (2) 6.67 1;37 232.86*

(3) 3.06 .77

Clear goals_ (1) 11.83 .89

and standards (2) 9.62 1.87 37.88**

(3) 7.35 1;94

Workload (1) 11.19 2.26

(2) 8.86 2.71 5.95*

(3) 10.58 2.33

Vocational (1) 11.21 2.96

relevance (2) 7.21 1.42 58.51**

(3) 4.27

Good teaching (1) 11.63 1.02

(2) 11.74 1.48 06

(3) 11.63 1.65

FreedOM in (1) _8;24 1.72

learning (2) 10.21 1.46 15.35**

(3) 11.54 2.67

* p <.01

** p (.001

128 1.45


Table 7;2 FACTOR ANALYSIS OF COURSE PERCEPTIONS SCALES(N = 2208)

Variables

Factors

I

(56% variance explained)

II

Coed teaching 76Freedom in learning 57Openness to students 76Social climate 42 32Formal teaching meth-oils 71Clear goals and standards 30 57Workload (-24)Vocational relevance 72

Decimal points and most loadings less than .25 omitted

Factor I Po,itive evaluation of teaching and courses

Factor II Formal vocational teaching

interviews of 57 students in six departments (seeChapter 8), suggested that the_second7order evaluationdimension_-_Factor I in Table 7.2 - might usefully besubdivided into two components each containing twoscales. Good teaching and freedom in learning werecombined into the scale of perceived student-centred-ness 0.75), while freedom in learning and work.,load (the latter scale negatively keyed) were joinedto form a scale of perceived control -centredness(cam= 0.75)_in a department. These measures of adepartment's learning context were found to besignificantly associated with characteristic approachesto learning; the relationships will be discussed inChapter 9.

CONCLUSIONS

The course perceptions questionnaire appears toprovide a useful means of describing_ certain impor-tant and consistent differences.in the way studentsperceive departMents. The relationships betweenthe present results and previous research intoacademic environments in higher education seem tomake sense. Dimensions of teaching quality; work-loacL and clarity of goals have_been found to occur

129

14i


consistently in factor analytic studies of studentratings of teachers. The only other research directlycomparable to the investigations reported in thischapter (Gaff et al, 1976) discovered similardimensions (and relationships between the dimensions)to those of the CPQ, with a sample of Dutch students.Studies of differences between the disciplinary 'ethos'or 'culture' _of different_fields_of_study have alsoproduced findings compatible with those of the CPQfseei e.g.; Smithers; 1969; Gaff and Wilson, 1971).It is hoped that the questionnaire may prove to be avaluable instruments for use by academic departmentsas a means of obtaining information about students'reactions to assessment and teaching methods.

The limitations of the CPQ are also apparent,however. Firstly; the picture provided of the per-ceived learning context is incomplete, because thequestionnaire is unable to examine the detail of therelationships between an individual student'sapproach to a learning task and his perception of itscontext. Nor can it allow_for differences betweenlecturers and courses in a departMent. Explorationof_these matters requires a different methodology,and attention is turned towards them in the nextchapter.

secondly; the_examination of students' per7ceptions offers only one way (although a demonstrablyvalid one) of describing departmental environments.Within the compass of the present_research programmeit was not possible to examine other potentiallyimportant distinctions between departments except ina very limited way. Lecturers' attitudes andexperience; curriculum structure, research and teach-ing orientation; and the type of institution in whichthe department is situated, are among the differenceswhich might fruitfully be explored in future research.

147130

Chapter Eight

STUDENTS' EXPERIENCES OF LEARNING

In the previous-- chapters we hay:: dealt mainlywith research findings arising from MethOdStraditionally used to investigate student learning.Theapproaches to studying inventory made -use oftypical psychometric techniques; tests of abilityand personality were the focus of chapter 5;_chapter 6 reported experimental data on readingacademic articles.

These approaches to understanding student learn-ing have a common factor; They are all to someextent removed from the immediate reality of being astudent in the_natural setting of an academicdepartment; Even the development of the courseperceptions questionnaire inevitably tended_to con-strain students' experiences into a mould shaped bythe researcher. AlthbUgh indications of the effectsof_the_context and content of learning_ were given inthe students' comments in chapter 6, these commentsthemselves came from a rather narrow experimentalsituation.

- It is important that our choice of researchMethods does not-undervalue the dynamic, tentativecharacter of_student learning in faVOUt Of a 6tatiC,consistent view. Nor must we exclude potentiallycritical variables in the real world_of a student'sencounter with a learning task in Order to achieveexperimental precision. The research methods_usedby Marton and his colleagues (see chapter 2) Offeran experiential, phenomenal perspective on studentlearning whichcan be-seen as an alternative to theexperimental and correlational approaches. Typi-cally, each student's unique experiences are examinedby qualitative analysis of interview data; A_potentially richer and more accurate picture Of thelinks between student learning and its context andcontent is the chief return to an investment in thiS

131

148

Students' Experiences of Learning

approach. Of course; the_qualitativeappreach is_not without weaknesses of its own, perhaps the mostimportant of which is the danger of bias from thesubjective and impressionistic way -this sort of datais sometimes handled. But careful controls can beused to.minimi7e these difficulties.

This chapter describes the findings of a seriesof interviews designed to draw upon the strengths ofthis qualitative; experiential perspective. Theinterviews were used to examine students' approachesto academic tasks and their assessment strategies,and to provide a detailed picture.of students' per-ceptions of the contexts of learning in which theyworked: The results extend previous work atLancaster, and the research of Marton (see, e.g.,Marton and SaljO, 1976a, _b) and Laurillard (1978;1979) in several directions. The analyses -whichfollow will show how categories of levels of approach,typos of context, and individual differences inapproach and strategic study methods were developedand subsequently used to identify differences betweenstudents and contexts. Relationships between thecontent and perceived context of the student8' work andtheir approaches to academic tasks, and betweenapproaches and degree results; will also be examinedin detail.

METHODS

This is not the place to begin a discussion ofthe complicated issues surrounding the use of quali-tative methods (see Marton and Svensson; 1979;EntWiStle, 1981; Ramsden, 1981, for more extensiveexaminations of the relevant issues). It is, how-ever; important to bear in mind that a qualitativeperspective assumes that it is valid to considercategories of description - e.g. of differentapproaches to a learning task to which meaning isattributed through the learner's own perspective -as results in themselves; and not only as sourcesof categories to be later used in a _quantitative way;

In the present study a total of 57 LancasterUniversity students was interviewed. Table 8,1 showsthe composition of the sample, which was selected byexamining students' scores on one or more subscalesof the approaches to studying inventory; studentswith extreme scores were those chosen. The finaldegree results of the students, and in the case ofthe engineering students, the distribution of thechosen group's second year marks as welli_suggestedthat the sample was at least broadly representative

132

149

StUdents' Experiences of Learning

Of different levels of ability.

Table 8.1 COMPOSITION OF THE INTERVIEW SAMPLE

Dkscipline Year of Study Dates Interviewed

PsychologyEngineeringPhysicsHistoryEnglish 2

Independent Studies 2 & 3

February Match 1977June 1977

January-June 1978

13_9

1011

5

9

TOTAL 57

The preliminary interviews used a broad range_ofquestions,__And experience with these interviews ledto the development of A ShOrter schedule for'studentsin the main part of the_study. This contained threegroups of questions. The focus of the fitSt groupwas on reading and essay-writing (for arts_andsocial science students) and on- problem- solving andreport writing (for science StUdents). Appropriatelyspecific questions about relevant learning tasks(How did you go about -it? Why are you reading itWere you looking out for anything in particular?Did you_do itdifferently from another task of thesame sort? _Why? - and so on) were asked. Thesecond set of questions concerned assessmentstrategies_and the perceived outcome of the Student'scourse. Finally, several questions about thelearning contextof_the student's main subjectdepartment (teaching, assessment, purpose of lecturesrelationships with staff and other students) wereasked.

All theinterviews used a semi-structuredapproach;theorder and phrasing of the questionsvaried somewhat_depending on the way in t4hibh thestudent answered eh-et, and exactly the same questions_were_not asked_of every student;

_ The semi- structuredapproach did not, however, mean that the interviewswere uncontrolled. It was always ensured that thesame main points 7. see_above - were raised. Greatcare was taken not to be over-directive. At the

150 133

:Rodents' Experienecsof Learning

same Limci_the interviewer made a continual effortLO be aiett to comments made by the student whichrelated to the hypotheses of the investigation, andwhich ought to be probed more fully.

The analysis of interviews of_this kind presentsperhaps a greaLexthreat to the validity of the datathin their conduct_. it first, consideration wasgiven to using methods such as network analysis andcritical incident techniques; but the resultsObtained in a cOMparable study ofstudents'- approachesto learning (Bliss and Ogborn, 1977) seemed trite incomytrison_with_the sophistication of the methods.More useful guidance was Obtained from the methods _

of qualitative analysis used in the research carriedout by Marton and his colleagues at Gothenburg.These techniques are designed to extract full valuefrom the_eomplexity of the interview data. Trans-cripts of the interviews are read and re-read untilemergent qualities of students' experiences are con-SiStently identified. The constructs are verifiedby several judges.

The present study_adapted Marton's techniquesto a ditterent research situation. Practical. con-straints made it impossible to have all the inter-views transcribed in full (a sine quit non of theGothenburg approach). More importantly, it was feltimportant to -avoid the dangers of a strictly inducti-vist approach by Specifying certain_guiding_hypothesezderived from pre,,ioos research, inclUding the work ofMarton. The. oatc,..2.- of responses eventually usedto classify the transcribed extracts were validatedby means of inter-judge comparisons.

These constructs were used to direct theanalysis:

Categories describing different levels ofapproach;

2; Evaluative -and descriptive categories relatingto the context of learning indifferent depart-ments: in particular, categories relating toteaching, assessment, and course structures.The dimensions discovered in the factor analysisof the CPQ, those reported by Gaff et (1976),and those reported in_studies_of Je-4 .cerevaluation (e.g. Kulik and McKeachie,were particularly considered;

1975),

3. Differencesbehaviour"

between individual students(Miller and Parlett, 1974);

in "cue

4 Differences between individual students inapproaches to academic work (especially thehoiist- atomist dimension identified by Svensson(1977);

134

151


5; RelaLiOn:Thips but_wcon approaches and_contexts(e.y. Becker's "selective negliyence" in res-ponse to assessment pressures), including

_

associations between the conditions of the taskand-the typo of approach used (b.f. Fransson;1977) .

__Fuller details of all the techniques used ind ehdicting and analysing the interviews can be foundin Ramsden (1981);

PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS

A preliminary_analysis was made by listening toeich tape - recording several times and making full (orvery lengthy) transcripts of a_sample of interviews;With the help of Marton's_judgement instructions ftircategorizing deep and surface level responses itOVOhttililly became_clear_that deep and surfacecategories of description could be applied to theresponses of students in every department. Sub-d ategories_differing from those used by Marton were,however_, needed to classify the responses satisfactor-ily; It was possible,_in this analysis, to identifydifferent strategic approaches related to assessmentwhich distinguished amongindividual students. Fore kathple,_a small number of students in all the depart-ments took a highly strategic, assured approach toassessment tasks, while others adapted to -the con-straints of examinations and assignments in 16SSpositive ways; Relationships between students' per-d eptions of_p_articular tasks and the approaches theyused to them were also indicated_in_the analysis.Studeht8 who described favourable conditions forlearning in relation to -a- subject or topic (0..helpful teaching) were likely to describe a deep -level approach_toa task connected to it while thereverse was true -if the conditions were unfavourable

a surface level approach_was described; oftenbythe_same student). An association between astudent-'s level of interest in a task, or his back-ground knowledge_of_the subject to which it referred;and level of approach, was also identified. Poorbackground knowledge (especially_of concepts in_ _

science) or_a_low level of interest (particularly inarts and_sociai science subjects) were associated withsurface level approaches. These preliminary findingshave been described in greater detail 61S0Where(Ramsden; 1979).

5 2J35

Students Experiences of Learning

CATEGORIES DESCRIBING DEEP AND SURFACE APPROACHES

The first task_in the_main_analysis was todevelop a model of deep and surface which describedthe approaches used _by students in a wide variety oftasks in different disciplines and departments. Theframework was established by means of comparingstudents' responses to the _Interview questions deal-ing with approaches to academic tasks with two othersets of judgement instructions: those of Marton(1975) and Laurillard (1979).

Marton used one set of judgement instructionsto classify social science students' responses tointerview questions about their reading of academicarticles under experimental conditions, and a some-what different set to classify responses to questionsabout their normal studies. Laurillard interviewedscience students about their approaches to severaltasks fOrming part of their normal studies. She didnot require students to work under experimental con-ditions, nor did she ask them questions about theirgeneral approaches to studying. The present studywas similar to Laurillard's in that students wereinterviewed about their approaches to tasks carriedout in their normal work. But the tasks describedby students were much more diverse; they includedproblem-solving, project work, essays, reading ofbooks and articles, and examinations, in a number ofdifferent subject areas. It seemed advisable; __moreover, to leave open the possibility of identifyingconsistent approaches to studying -by the same student.

It was found necessary to modify the categoriesused by Marton and Laurillard in order to provide amodel which adequately described the_variability inthe present data. An effort was made to develop aset of sub-categories which was both theoreticallyparsimonious and generally applicable to all thedepartments. The definitions appear in Figure 8.1.Four categories used by the previous researchers todefine a deep approach are generalized to become D,and D

3'D which has no equivalent in Laurillard's

descriptions, was found to be essential to classifystudents_. indications of a close personal relation-ship with the academic material with which they weredealing._ It resembles one of the sub-categoriesused by Marton and his colleagues to_classify a _

student's approach to his normal work. ThiS sub-category; which describes a tendency on the part ofthe student to see knowledge as part of oneself, isan important component of Marton's conception of a

136 153


Figure 8.1 CATEGORIES OF DESCRIPTION FOR DEEP AND SURFACELEVELS OF APPROACH

D- Personal experience

Integrating the task with oneself. Indicate desireto relate the task or the subject to personal or reallife situations: to compare a task with personalexperience (outside the course); to see _a task aspart of oneself or one's_personal development; ex-_

press a wish to use the khowledge forming part of thetask outside its immediate context in relation tooneself.

RelationshipsD2

Integrating the parts into a whole. Indicate desireto relate parts of the task to each other or the task

DEEP to other relevant knowledge; _indicate active attemptsto think about the relationships between differentparts of the material (e.g. relate evidence to con-clusion); try to relate material from differentsources; try to see connections between previouslystudied materials and currently studied materials.

Meaning

Integrating the whole with its purpose. Indicateintention to impose meaning: think about the under-lying structure; or the intention of_the whole task;try to 'stand back' from the task and see it in awider perspective; impose a pattern on the whole task.

S1

Unrelatedness

Defining the task as separate or its parts as dis-crete. Indicate intention or tendency to treat thetask as an isolated phenomenon: _confront thematerial as separate from other ideas and materials,or from the general purpose of the task to which itrelates; focus on the elements of the task ratherthan the whole.

SURFACE S- Memorisation

Defining the task as a memory task. Indicateintention to mcmorize the material.

S-3

Unreflectiveness

Defining the task in an external way. Indicate un-reflective or passive approach to a task: indicateintention not to extract meaning from the material;see the subject-matter as external to oneself.

137

154


deep level appruaHl (sec, e.g., Marton, 1976) . Thethree surfAce subcategories in Figure 5.1 closelyresemble Laurillard's modifications of Marton's cutegories,althoughSiandS-3 are here more generallydefined.

Figure 8.1 also shows the instructions used toclassify students' responses. But the meaning ofeach of the categories is properly shown through theuse of repeated instances from the student interviews.Given_below_ure extracts from the interviews whichexemplify the use of the subcategories in relationto different tasks.

1) Personal experience

L think 1. tend quite a lot to relate (this reading) to myown experiences as well. Try and think of instances wherethese experiments would be proved_right._ So it takes a bitof time reading yeah. I think if they're talking aboutthings like field independence I try to think about whetherpeople I know are field dependent or independent. (Reading

academic articles; psychology, student 6).

[ got into the poem and could feel what it means. I

became part of it... L found it interesting because it had adeep theological meaning_, and I'm interested in that subject.(Reading poetry; English, stiident 23)

I suppose [Ini trying to imagine what the experiment is_talking about, I think, in a physical sense. sort of_get apicture of what Ws about... This one says an ultr;, violetlamp emits one watt of power; it says calculate the energyfalling on a square centimetre per second. .I'm just thinkingof_the light and the way_it spreads out, so therefore _I knowit's the Inverse square law ... (Laboratory work; physics;

student 8).

To start trom scratch, to basicalIy_put together information and use it and actually build it and test it and seethat the thing; there is a fair degree of correlation betweenyour test results and what you actually expected the thing toproduce; I think is good... You select certain formulae to useand by using chem... and seeing that they produce the resultsyou hoped they would, then, you know, you prove to yourself that

chose formulae could be used. (Project work; engineering,

student 2).

I).; Relationships

You read it, a section on precipitation hardening... andI think well; fair enough, the material is about as strong asmild steel or something, and I'll remember that if T can; butI'm not going to remember that it's 297 Newtons per square mm.if it's in such and such a state ... There are one or two

138

155

Students' Experiences of L'eartiihg

D9 RelaL i onsh ips (-on( i nued)

things that dd stick in your mind like the strength of mildsteel, and so on, because we've - it it' tIi projects, soyou have A SOVC Of telatiVe Sean ..reby you can say it'snearly as strong as mild steel ... Aeading textbooks;engineering. student 6).

You know a method of approach; so you find usually thething simplities itself greatly after you've removed a few ofthe non-essentials and put it into a logical form whichrelates to something you've done previously: (PrOblein-solving; physics, student 12).

I'm trying to relate it to the course as a whole. It'snot just writing down a load of notes and thinking 'that's itfor my essay' ... You try to sort of keep a logical progressionin history; so you've some idea of the themes ... (Readingtexts; history, student 1).

You read it, you see what it's about: and usually it'sgot,oftenit has sonic hearing on_something 0180 you've readbefore; It surly dunfirm that or just add another side to itor be completely different. (Reading academic articles;psychology, student 2).

D3 Meaning

The ideaS Are started by the actual question. You realizethat_it presupposes a few points_ that you r. get into theessay I list the ideas that have got to go into the essay,betaUSd the essay, you know, entails these things. (Essay-writing; English; student 6):

If I feel_ that the article is going to be very relevantto what_I!ni doing - and you can often glean that from the title- then I'll tend to go through it fairly slowly. Rather thanskim through it I'll read through it in_a full way: I supposeI've -got these various probleffi areas Which I'll be looking into;and I'll be looking, I'll be reading the article with_these inmind. (Reading academic articles; independent St::dies,student 6).

I was looking for a pattern which I could relate to thescript. I was drawing graphs ... I knew from the script whatwas supposed to be happening and I was looking out for itto happen on the graph ... fortunately it did. (Laboratorywork; physics, student 6).

You have to go through quite a few different designs toget to the right one ... I'm sort of .sways thinking abbUtwhat I can put in the conclusion when I'm writing the project...

139


Meaning (emit inuedl

1111 try and show what 1 have achieved, weld, understand; from__

the project. (Project report writing; engineering, student 3).

It was a good chapter becausejt. organised the readingsthat were to follow ... which led me off to further articles,

and at the end 01 It, making notes on 'he things I was_reading,

1 hod a_great wad of it, which by that time, I had an idea Ofhow my initial conception of the problem could be used to sort

out all the information I'd now got. And it all Sort of fitted

together quite nicely. Because 1 thinkas I was writing I was

thinking about how I was going to, how the :inal product wasgoing to e_ome about, and that sort of directed my reading in

fact. (Essayprevaratiou; psychology; student 5).

s- Miro tatudness

1 don't exactly write down all the steps you should do.

should write down those sort of things this is the

result, did It work or not? If it didn't; did something else

do it? That's the best way of going About it Well, I just

sort of write down what I've done. just do the calculations

and work back from there. (Projects; engineering; student 7).

This problem here, you're asked co say if it's_an eigenfunction, but you don't really know because he hasn't mentionedit in the feet:fires. He's mentioned what an_eigenfunction is,but no way of telling how to work it out... You put in a _

formula to get the eigen energy, but to get the eigenfinctiO6,Whether it's applicable or not; there's no way of knowing(Problemsolving; physics, student 5).

I tend to give up on them. I tend to write very confusedessays; because I have all these ideas going through My head,and I write them down; but 1 don't pot them down in anyparticular logical sort of plan ... 1 tend to do better inexams; because the confusion doesn't matter so much, as longas the relevant points are there. I don't scm to be able tolink ideas together. (Essay writing; history, student 7);

1 think it tends to be the case that I get bogged down in

detail. I'm sure that's the case _I mean it explains whyI'M so longwinded about any work that I do. I really don'tfind it easy to pick out the skeletal argument and just besatisfied with that. (Reading; psychology, student 10).

S:2

Memorization

Preparing for an exam, you learn your facts; then -you haveto memoriz them, and sort of vague, sort of aspects of it...(Examination revision; history; student 2).

140

157


MemorI.Lation (contiflu(d)

I hate to sayit,butwhat you've get to do is have _a listof the "facts". You write_down ten important points andmemoriae those then you'll do all right in the class test.(Revision; psychology, student 5).

Formulae ... just go to (to the examination) with as manyFormulae as possible, no you _learn those parrot-fashion: Andapproaches to the way you work out prOblems, techniquesinvolved in maths__... lseem to remember, just sort of one dayor two. (Revision; engineering; student 8):

I'm trying to remember it all what's useful in exams.(Reading; physics; student 8):

SJ Unreflectiveness

(his project) cis just a matter of grinding_the numbersout, getting some kind of solution. If it was adequate, Lairenough. If it wasn't really, go back and pick differentValues. (Project work; engineering; student 11):

You just go straight for the section which is relevant_ tothat particular question Therell be a topic in the bookwhich the question comes under, and then you hunt through thatsection toseeifthey've got any ... Hopefully; they'll havethe exact question and you can copy it straight down withoutdoing any work at all Usually you have to hunt out thevarious related equations; then you just apply these _to theproblem. Thar' all, really. (PtObleiii-solving; physics,student 12).

It's a bit confusingthissubject)... I tend to rushthrough the books I'm reading for the essays; so I still don'treally understand it when I've finished teading. And becauseth re's such a loi_ofinformation I think you can oversimplifyor go into too much detail._ And I think I tend CO over-simplify; (Reading; English, student 31).

loo don't need_to do as much background reading (forthese essays). I just sort of set aside a_day to do it andjust write it. I..don't think about it. (Essay- writing;English, student 38):

THE MEANING OF DEEP AND SURFACE IN DIFFERENT CONTEXTS

_Analysis of the student interviews revealedimportant differences in the meanings attached todeep and surface approaches by students in differentsubject areas. In the previous section we lbbked at

141.

158


the_concopts An 0 general form in order to identifydifferences which make sense in all the departmentsinvestigated; here we examine characteristic differ-ences in the meanings of the categories in differentlearning environments. It is clear that what goes_to make up a deep or surface approach in one disciplineis not the same as in another disciptine_ Moreover,while the moaning of the deep- surface dichotomy isfundamentally the same in different subject areas,there arc important variations in emphasis. Theanalysis concentrates on the clearest distinction toemerge. This was (hot unexpectedly) between artsand social science departments (psychology, history,English) and science and technology departments(physics and engineering) .

poop 1

to the physics and engineering departments, thissUb-category is typically indicated by attempts torelate the experience of the physical mo-rld totheoretical concepts in the subject. Students fre7guently speak cif "getting a picture of the problem"and linking theory to practice. Student 8 in thephysics department provides the definitive example:

"I suppose I'm trying to imagine what the experi-ment is talking_abouti I thinki in a physicalsense. Sort of get a picture of what itsabout I'm just thinking of the light and theway it spreads out, so therefore I know it's theinverse square law ..."(physics, student 8).

The category is also indicated by a student'sexpression of the experience of personal satisfactionwhile doing or in successfully completing a task:

"It's just seeing_it worke you know. Firstall is looks as though it's impossible to do_andyou lust geti sorting through, the satisfactionof knowing you've understood what you're doing'(Project work; engineering, student 3).

Arts and social science students also speak ofthe_experience of personal satisfaction; this may becombined with the linking of personal experience ofother people to the subject matter of the task. Forexample:

142

"I'm very interested in social sciences generally.I find it very enlightening, very entertaining;very satisfying, to learn theories and then to

159


observe them in reality; Casually; _tb"Christ; -look; happening, you know, thetheetY'S tere,_thaYs what_'s going on;" and Ithink it adds so much, you know, Lb my life, tobe able to perceivewhat_happens_in everydaysocicty, through the eyes of a sociologist or

wof a psychologist, and put a structure on what'sgoing on." (psychology, student 7):

The important differenceto be appreciated hereis the contrast_ between the emphasis in arts andsocial science on personal contact with the learningtask deriVed frOMthestudent's experience of_otherpeople and the emphasis in science on personalexperience of the physical world, There is agreateremphasis_also on personal interpretation anduniqueness of experience in the arts Students' indi-cationS; the interpretive element is most common inEnglish;

In the uciencedepartments, indications are mostfrequently of attempts to relate- together the Variousaspects of a problem, particularly in a_ logical way(to "See hew it all fits together"). See; forexample; physics_ student 12 above,p.139: you "putit into a logical form which relates to somethingyou've -done previously".

_ This extract also exemPlifies another typicalindiCatien: the_connection of what is known aboutanother problem or topic to the new task - usually,but not alWays, in a very specific way. This alsohappens in reading:

"YOU read it, a section on precipitation harden-ing .,._and I_think; well; fair enough, thematerial is about as strong_as mild steel orsomething; and I'll remember that -if I can_;_ bUtI'm not going to remember that it's 297 Newtonsper square mm. if it's in such and such a state... There are one or two things that do Stick inyour mild like the_strength_of mild steel; andso_onbecause we've used it in_the projects; soyou have a_sort of relative scale whereby youCan say it's_nearly as strong as mild_steel ;;."(Reading textbooks; engineering, student 6).

generally trying to relate what the booksays_to what you know about it already".(Reading textbooks; physics; student 8);

160143


"This book's about the relationship between theartist and society, which is quite relevant tothe essay v^pic I'm doing, so I'm reading itvery thoroughly ... I'm reading and underliningthings that I think are important. And then Ifind it a bit difficult because sometimes it _

talks about some of the poems of the author thatI haven't read; so then I go back and read thepoems ... then afterwards I go back and makequite detailed notes on the book, looking back atthe things I've underlined and trying_to inte-grate it into the main topics that he's talkingabout." (Reading; English, student 5).

"One of the first necessities with essays is tohave it well-planned I'm concentrating verymuch on the organizing aspects, trying to readthrough and see if it makes sense; you knowifrom point to point". (Essay-writing; history;student 8).

. _

Indications of attempts to relate ideas fromdifferent topics or fields to the tas in nand, or torelate ideas within the topic; are also commonly -

found (see, for example, history, student 1, quotedabove, -p. 139)- The process of relating ideas appear:to be done much more specifically in science tasks:concepts are related to particular problems inscience, while in arts the focus is wider and -ideasfrom different topics or fields are more freelyrelated.

Deep 3

The expression of a sense of purpose in carry-ing out a task is common to both main_subject groups.There is a somewhat greater emphasis in arts andsocial science on underlying meanings and uniquenessof experience, possibly because scientific fieldsare characterized by single paradigms an_consensus -about appropriate_content and method (c.f.Biglan, 1973b). For example:

144

It was a good chapter because it organized thereadings that were to follow ... which led meoff to further articles, and at the end of -it;making notes on the things I was reading, I hada great wad of it, which_by that time, I had anidea of how my initial conception of -the problemcould be used to sort out all the informationId now got. And it all sort of fitted

161


tiige_her guiLonieeIy. Because I think as Iwas writing I was thinking about how I was goingto; how the final_product was going to come out,andthat_sort of directed_ my reading in fact'(Essay-preparation; psydholegy, Student 5).

'What I'm trying to_do is find out WhetherTennyson compromised his art to the age orwhether hejust wrote what_he_really wanted towrite. _That's what I'M thinking about all thetime as I'm reading it, and reading his poemsas well': (Reading; English, student 5)

"There arealways underlying themes in anyperiod of history; and if you can sort of pickout these themes and really understand what was.joing on_and:what it was all about; then you'vegot a good chance of diSdeVering it on an equalSett Of basis with your tutor_or in an exam':(Reading; history, student 1);

"You have to go through quite a few differentdesigns to get the right one ... I'm sort ofalways thinking about what I can put in the -con-clusion when writing the project I'lltry and show what I have achieved, well, under-stood,_from_the project." (Project reportwriting; engineering; StUdent 3).

"I was looking for a pattern which I couldrelate to the script. I was drawing graphs ...I knew from the_script what was supposed to behappening and I was looking out for it tohappen on the graph ... fortunately it dJd."(Laboratory work; physics; student 6);

"If you follow the instructions to the letter;it's not so interesting. The instructions areonly one way of doing the experiment, but_ypucan develop variations that get a better answer,if you_ just start from scratch; really ... Youknow what you're heading_ for - say this measure-ment of a nucleus - so -that might imply Measure-ments of field versus frequency, say. And thatkeeps you on the right lines: (Laboratory work;physics; student 10);

Surfee 1

This sub-category_ is concerned with students'

descriptions of not thinking about roMtiou8hip-8 in

145

162

Students' Experiencesof Learning

both science and arLi:. in science, however,students cm.mphasite over-concentration on proceduresin performing a task: using formulae, calculations,figures in tackling a problem without reference totheir relationship to each other or to the purposeof the. task. Two extracts already quoted aboveexemplify this sub-category (engineering, student 7;page 140 ; physics, student 5, page 140 ). It issometimes difficult to separate this sub-categoryfrom descriptions of serialist strategies demanded_bythe type of task and the student's unfamiliarity withthe topic. Particularly in science, it seems thatit may be necessary to use procedures which areempirically inseparable from surface approaches as astage prior to taking a deep level approach

Engineering and physics students also describea tendency to focus on factual details (in reading,loot:tiros, and writing reports) which are deliberatelyunrelated to other parts of the course. This is un-mistakably a surface approach:

"It's something completely separate from whatwe're doing in- the lectures _ It's just onevery narrow subject ... it didn't relate toanything else at all really ... Facts, and justfacts; Nothing else. You get the facts downsc that anybody else can read them without anypadding or anything else."_ (Project reportwriting; engineering, student 8),

In arts, the emphasis is more likely to be on _detailed factual information which is unrelated eitherto the meaning of the task or to personal meaning.Art8 and social science students are also more likelyto speak in general terms about not relating ideas.For example!

"A point I didn't make about the essays was that,I think, you're meant to express an appreciationof diversity, whereas in the class test, if youcan_give a bit of factual information - so-and-SO did that, and concluded that, for two sidesof writing, then you'll get a good mark."(Tests; psychology, student 5):

"I tend to give up on them. I tend.to writevery confused essays, because I have all theseideas going through my head, and I write themdown, but I don't put them down in anyparticular logical sort of plan I tend to dobetter in exams, because the confusion doesn't

146

Students' Experiencesof Learning

Matter so mu'eh, au long as the relevant pointsare there 1_,dan't seem to be able to linkideas together." (Essay-writing; history,student 7).

Surface 2

Indications of this category among the scienceStUjents'transcripts typically consist of_descrip-tions of memorizing formulae; data, faCtUal paintsin reading; or transferring_lecture information orreading_to_the_memory without thinking about itThe stimulus is often an impending examination, andthe approach may be either calculated or simplyanxious:

"YeS, a lot of preparation to get proofs offpat_... It's no good trying tb Work it out whenyou're in the exam." (Revision; physics,student 10).

"YOu'Ve just got to go over, reading the notesThere's not really any questions you can

attrmpt ... It's just reading the notes andhoping it sinks in". (Revision; engineering,student 3);

Similar indications are given by the socialscientits and artists, although these students alsoMention an emphasis on memorizing_ vague generalitiesas well as specific procedures and fadtSt

"Preparing for an exam, you learn your fattt;then you have to memorize theM, and sort ofVague, sort of aspects of it ..12 (Exam; revision;history, student 2);

"What gets tested in_the exam is short-term re-call, that's all S0 in revising fer an examI just cram my mind with_such facts as I con.7.sider to_be pertinent, to be able to trot offthese names of people or places, dates or what-ever " (Revision, history, student 4).

Surface 3

This sub-category is very often combined empiri-cally with Si; The conceptual distinction, however,is between_ purposelessness and unreiatedrieSS-;_ S3is frequently seen by students to be dissatisfying,but necessary because of contextual constraints

147

164


(such as lack td. interest. in a required subject) .Indications of the sub- category in engineering andphysics are_descriptiens of the unthinking use ofprocedures (e.g. equations) in solving problems; orthe glossing-over of the meaning of the problem:

"The first one, well I know that formula offfrom last year. It's just a simple formula.You shove in a number and it comes out straightaway." (Problem-solving; physics, student 5);

"There'll be a topic in the book which thequestion comes under, and then you hunt throughthat section_ to see if they've got any ... Hope-fully, they'll have thi; exact question and you _can copy it_straight dawn without doing any workat all ... ftsually you have to hunt out the _

various related equations, then you just applythese to the problem. That's all really."(Problem-solving; physics, student I2).

Alte77latively, science students describe a pro-cess of s t-ting through data without trying tounderstan: it; just_learning techniques, or "justgetting it done withoUt enjoying it or thinking _ _

about it". Psychology, history and English students'indications of this category often consist of des-criptions of a passive, unthinking, vague approach toa task; for example:

"_The topic was causes and consequences (of theReform Act) so I was sort of looking through forcauses and consequences, as opposed to anythingelse that was relevant ... I wasn't really veryinterested, so I didn't spend a lot of time_onit basically ... I just read what it said, Idon't know really." (history; student 2).

A slightly different indir, ion is of beingeasily distracted by similar (i),c irrelevant) materialwhen reading, and of oversimplifying, or "going offthe p-int" when writing:

"I have too many ideas running through my headand if I_let_myself run away with my ideas, Ican completely come off the subject of thequestion; and I used to be really bad aboutthat; but I'm_not so bad about it now." (Essay-writing; English, student 6).

"I tend t0 be a bit specific initially; but I

148


do tind th,ii_l_yeLmisled_very easily and assoon_as another area comes up which perhaps,not_quite to do with the topic that I'm wantingto look at specifically but has interestingconnections then I go off on tangents. Veryregularly end up sort of miles away from whereI originally started." (Reading books andarticles; psychology, student 10).

STYLES AND PATHOLOGIES OP LEARNING IN DIFFERENTSUBJECT AREAS

The differeno:s we have deSeribed above areclearly related to the different nature of typicallearning tasks in lifferent La:bject areas. It isdifficult not to i.e aware of a parallel_ between thedifference-a descrived by Pask (1976; 1977) inrelation to learniny strategies and styles and theprosont_ tindinqs. Iii arts and social_ science; it.it fears that. a deep level approach relies relativelymore - at Mast initially - on a holist strategy(an emphasis_on_personal experiences; uniquene88 ofexperiencei interpretation, illUStration, the generalrelation 01 ideas). In science serialiststrateyies are more common (an emphasis is Apparent,for example; on seeing relationships_within the con-text of the taskrather than in a more genera/ way,or in making relationships between theoreticalideas)

Itwould appear that the holist- serialist andcomprehension-operation diStinctions describedifferendeS not only between strategies_and indi-viduals within -a_ subject area (Pask, 1976;Laurillard, 1978); bUtMalso differences between thedemands made by learning tasks in different subjectareas. It is Important to recognize the differencein the Meaning of_thedeep-surface dichotomy whichhinges on this distinction Deep approaches inscience may contain elements whichin arts termswouldusually_be_classified as surface; a serialiststrategy may involve rote learning or -a very narrowfocuS on procedures as_a_stage prior to a deepapproach. This-strategy is not of course, uniqueto science tasks; but it is more common in sciencetaskt than in arts ones.

It is alSO possible to_see similarities betweenthe surface sub-categories in -the students' descrip-tions of their experiences and Pask's concepts ofglobetrotting and improvidence. In so -far asholist strategies are more commonly used in the

149

166

Students' EXperiences of Learning

first stages (d arts and social science tasks ortopics, and serialist strategies in science, it

might be deduced that science students are morelikely to display improvidence,_and artists globe-trotting. The evidence from the interviews_Is__equivocal. Arts students are more 'gendralied" intheir indications of surface approachesi but this isnot the same thing as globetrotting. S describessomething close to improvidence (over-cau1 tious re-liance on detail and failUre to use valid analogiesor to see.relationships), but it occurs at least ascommonly in arts Lrld social science as in science.On the other hand, 3S- contains some suggestion ofglobetrotting for the arts and social science students,but not for the scientists. WO Shall look at _

further evidence concerning the presence of patholo-gies of learning different subject areas inchapter 9.

CONTEXTS 01' ',CANNING

All the tntetviews included questions specifi-cally concornol with the students' perceptions of _

the learning environment The questions dealt withteachincr asse:Jsment, -ad course structures; a

genera1_,1,1!st:on t r the student's perception ofthe good .ind fcarares of the courses and thedepartment frelnded. Except in the psythoi.:gyand enginuel. departments, the student=, were alsoasked about r: context of specific 3cnrning tasks.

For example; :f a student indicated a surfar'capproach to one task and a deep approach to anotheror differeet approacnes within the same cask - hewas invIced to give a reason for tl-ri difference.

By far the most important ca.ceory to emergefrom the analysis of students' descriptions of theirexperiences was that represented in the earlierversions of the CPQ by the commitment to teaching andrelationships with students scales. This categoryrefers to the tlitlity of teaching in the departmentand to the extent to which staff seem to understandthe learning requirements of the students. It wasapparent in the interviews of students in all thedepartments;

"The thing with the independent studies staff isthat they're all so amiable ... they're so help-

if you go to them with a problem they_canusually find some answer . They all seem very_committed to the idea of independent studies, theyall feel that they're doing a worthwhile thing."(independent studies, student 2).

150

167


"Some (leoLureli) have been very good; partlybecause they've been well not flippantlydeliVered:butcertainly humorously; and with.in entertaini.ig streak; Others have beenputtiilj across too many facts:, and they seem tohave been_badly prepared and badly put across.There's ono- lecturer who is very clever, heknows it all, but I wish he'd try to share it abit more with_people; and just try and condensethe things he's saying, because he often-- repeatshimself and makes note-taking diffitUlt."(history student 5):

"There are some lecturers who Will think aboutanything you say, and say, Oh; I hadntthought_of that, let's see what it leads to.And there are other lettUters who will just goon talking almost to themselves ..;" (physics,student 10).

"AS long as_I'm doing a_subject that i'tinterested in it doesn't really matter tg mehow they do it.. .I_prefer departments to beorganized and efficient; an Lab; more impor-tant that's caring about their students.

_

That to mg m_isore important than the procedureof the coursework; you know, what they decideto do and whatthey_decide to leave out fromtheir courses doesn't bother me." (teiglish,student 6).

"My criticisms will be very tlesely aligned toI think; the lack of empathy that -some of thestaff-have about the ability levels of thestudents relative to their subject. Not _

telatiVe to being able to be_good enough to beat university if you like; bUt relative to thefact that the concrete knowledge that they haveis virtually nil in some of the areas that we'vetalked about, at a very:nigh level. So you czA'tattach anything_that you've been told to some-thing that you already know; Whith of course isa very important point in_ learning ... I thinkit's the overall problem of the experts comingin and having to give courses in a few weeks_ ontheir particular_interesti and they have such awealth of knowledge in that area that they startat too high a level.___That's what I thinkhappens._ They've gone so far into their ownarea that_they've forgotten that we knpw nothing;essentially, compared with them."(psychology;student 7).

168151


The interview data reveal an aspect of students'evaluations which the CPQ does not: staff in thesame department are compared with each other; andsome are seen to be more effective than others.While students do not seem to experience difficultyin describing the characteristics of the departmentas a whole, the - interviews show that these generaldescriptions hide important differences.

Several other categories of 'description emergingfrom the interview analysis appear to have an_evalu-ative element. The first of these corresponds tothe freedom in learning factor discovered in thequestionnaire analysis:

"I'm not sure where the system.'s failing_ butthere isn't the exchange of ideas, the sharingof information It's this very formal orobjectified way of looking at work, at what hasbeen produced in work; instead of ... beingmore informal and relaxed about_it, somehowstimulating much more beneficial discussion ...there isn't enough of that - you've got eostick to the structure and plough through it."(psychology, student 10).

The assessment and workload category correspondsto the workload factor:

152

"If I have started in plenty of time, then I dothinking_about the subject itself, more

!:an perhaps if I've got to hand it in, butbasically it's all a bit of a struggle, just tohand things in, as opposed to being interesting;you're working against a time deadline insteadof for your own benefit." (history, student 2).

"The exams_dor't exactly fill me with enthusiasm,particularly the electronic.; papers. We'vegot six papers for two units, which seems anawful lot. I know even the_staff admit theworkload in the second year is high, reallytough on us." (engineering; student 5).

"I look at (the topic) and I think to myself;'Well, I can do that if_I can be bothered tohunt through hundreds of textbooks and do thework' - and you sort of relate that to thevalue of the work in the course; which isvirtually zero because it's so much exam assess-ment I just_don't bother with it until theexams come round ... my revis'on is basically

169


for the exams, purely and simply_ aimed at pass-ing the exams without_bothering too much aboutstudying the subject." (physics, student 12).

Social climate -and clear goals standardsalso seem to be evaluative, although perhaps_ not asstrongly so as the categories already described:

"The Only thing I've got against_it ;._; is theisolation that's involved for independentstudies majors. I suppose to some extent thatis one's own bag, you know, and -it's up to oneto make_more contacts, but one finds oneselfrather isolated, because you're not going toroutinely convened classes, very often, and thatmeans you don't meet very many people. Theytried having:seminars but they_were very poorlyattended ..." (independent studies, student 29).

"We all do the same thing, we all talk about itmore than people in most departments. You canlearn a lot from this everything's relevant toeverybody else._ I know 95% of the otherstudents socially." (engineering, student 1);

The first term, I seemed to have done a lot ofwork, and I hadn't got anything_back at all, andI just had no idea_how I was doing. I gotquite worried really." (English, student 5).

Two further_ categories derived from the inter-vi:lw analysis formal teaching methods_and vocationalrelev.ince - correspond exactly to the CPQ scales ofthe same names. They are descriptive rather thanevaluve categories.

In a:Idition to_the more general descriptions andevaluatic of teaching, assessment, and courses, twocategories referring to the context of specificlearning tesKs were apparent in the analysis of theintervieWS: the student:_s_background knowledge ofthe topic subject of which the task forms a part,and _level of interest in or personal commitmentto a task. These categories are intimately associ-ated in the trc,nscripts with the approaches studentsdescribe to different tasks and will be discussed ina later sector..

The interview analysis confirms the finding ofthe CPQ analysis that the six departments_provide verydifferent contexts of learning; The differences be-tween the departments correspond closely to the

1 IQ153


differences identified by the CPQ (see Chapter 7),and are not repeated here.

The categories of description themSelVe8 de notappear to differ in meaning from one subject -area toanother to the extent the deep and surfaceapproach cateqories co. The lain evaluat:onvariable, Cettespondih.j to the relationships withstudents and commitment to teaching scales (andtheir later refinements) of the CPQ, occurs in_a_similar forM in all the interviews. One relativelyminor difference is that social science studeatSattach More importance to close personal relat2.on7ships with staff than students in the other. depart-ments. There are more differences in emphasis inthe other categories: Peteeived excessive formalityof the assessment system and a lack of f.lexibilityin thebSing assignments is of greater concern to artsand social scientists than to science students. Inthe vocationally-orientated engineering_ department,a heavy workload was not exactly welcomed, -but wasLecognised as being necessary in order to fUlfil the

professionally-defined demands of the syllabus. .

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN STRATEGIC STUDY METHODS

We have so far focused mainly on differencesbetween categories describing levels of, approach_andtypes of departmental context. WO shall now lookat_some categories describing differences betWeenIndiVidUal students which emerged from the inter-views.

The interviews_included two questions takenfrom Miller and Patlett'S study of studentsi_examin-ation strategies in a Scottish university (Milletand Patlett; 1974): "Do you think there is anytechnique involved in examinations, or not?" and"Do you think the staff get an impression of youduring the ,ear., or not?"; To these questions wereadded others aLout techniques in essay-Wtiting orproject-report writing. The purpose of thesequestions was to see N;41ietlier the kinds of strategiesidentified by Miller and Parlett would also bepresent in different environments - viz.; in depart-ments in which continuous assessment as well asassessment by final examinations was practised, andin science as well as in Social science_ departments.

A preliminary analysis of the psychblogystUderit81 interviews suggested that Miller and___Parlett's findingS were fairly closely replicated.Most students could be classified into one of thecategories of cue - seeker; cue-conscious, and cue-deaf

154

171


using judgeMcuL instrucLions similar to Miller andPariettit th,idified Lo include continuous_assessmenttasks. students, for example, not onlytried_to make favoUrable impressions on staff; andsearched for cues to examination topics; but alSOtook special care to select essay topics, and -writeessays; beating in mind the likes and dislikes of theparticular tutor who had_set them;

The engineering Students presented quite adifferent picture. Cue7seeking; as defined byMiller and Parletti simply did not exist. Somestudents were Mere strategic than others; but insteadOf using cue7seeking tactics, they used other i_thodsof maximizing- assessment outcomes. These includedpaying special attention to the detailed requirementsof a tutor when presenting written work, and themeticulous study of past examination papers: Thesestudents would _probably be_classified as cue - consciousin Miller and Parlettis scheme, but this would failto distinguish a small_group within this categorywho displayed a particularly strong determination_tosucceed by using these tactics._ Some of them wereaware that attempts to make good personal impressionsand to seek out favoured examination topics mighthave the opposite effect in this environment to thatintended, because of the formality of the teachingand staff-student telationships_in_the department.

These differences led to an attempt to deVe100a more general model of strategic methods. Millerand Parlett'S study represents a special case withinthis model._

There are three main categories: most strategic;interMediate, and_least_strategic. Students whoconsistently indicate active attempt:. to use select-ive effort in relation to assessment tasks (e.g.-essay preparation or examination revision) are Clatti-fied as most strategic. These students -(n =6) oftenalso indiCate the useof_impression management;They are frequently critical of the assessment system,but see it -as a game to be played and -won. Anpression of a rather_ruthlessi calculating approachis usually given (cf; Wankowski, 1973; Entwistleand Wilson; 1977). Within_this category, cue-seek-ing students can be identified in some departMents.The classic_cue-seeking variant is best exemplifiedin the psychology department:

"Sometimes I find Myself writing -for a tutor;writing for a marker ... With that essay I wasjust discussing; that reference group one, Iwrote with the image of the marker in mind; the

155

172


personality, the person, J find that's important,to know who's going to be marking your paper ...Question-guessing is the most_important{examination technique) Make a good stab atthe questions that yol: think you are going tocome up - just rationalize it and just work onthe areas you think are going to be asked."(psychology, student 7);

"I like to give the impression that I'm out toget a First and hope that they'll treat me inthat sort of way. I think if I stress myintention often enough, they'll sympathizewith me." (psychology, stUdent 5).

It was also apparent in some of the history andindependent studies students. For example:

"Staff certainly get an impression of me ... Allessay marking is subjective. I know ofinstances where I've handed in a good essay andgot an indifferent mark for it. I had adebriefing session with the tutor I thought,Well, my next essay I'll get a better mark forit . Arid I wrote perhaps not such a goodessay and got an excellent, mark for_it, whichI didn't really deserve. But in the contextof the learning process the tutor has animpression of you ... it all adds up to youressay mark and your exam marks." (history,student 4)

In the_ engineering department the highly strate-gic approach was not at all like cue-seeking. Butthe approach was related to an extrinsic, competitivemotivation in this discipline mw:e than in- any other.Notice how the next student relates the absence ofcue- seeking to the type of field in which he isstudying, and at the same time illustrates hisawareness of the assessment "game" in other subjectareas:

"The lecturer told us his marking scheme; and16 of the_possible 20 marks went for the de-sign, building, and performance of the bridge.It was a model bridge, and only 4 marks, 20%of the marks, were_available for the report.So obvously I didn't put much effort into thatat alli obviously I didn't spend three weeksWriting it up . . I'm well aware that I'm hereto get a degree you know, you don't write what

156

Students' kxperiences of Learning

iii think, you write what the tutor wants youto think. And in engineering in general there'snot muCh_room_forthat. I think there would bea_ lot more room for jL more subjective things,and I would do is even more then, presumably:(-engineering, student 6).

The absence of cue seeking in the engineeringdepartment_appears to be related to the degree offormality in_the learning context. While cue -seek-ing may be effective in a fairly personalized andinformal environment it is probably counterproductivein more formally organized departments. Even atactic such as selective revision of examinationtopics may be less effective in departments wherekhOWledge_is_more_hierarchically organised._

There were no students in the phy-sio departmentwho could be unambiguously clasSified into the most_stratugic_,:dte,Tory, but another student describeS theAssociation between strategies and subject area:

"You_sort of hear people in arts subjects'Hu's bound to ask a qiiestion on such a

_But in physics the thing's much morecontinuous in a way; YOU tan answer a quest-ion on 01adstone'sforeign policy; but - there'slots of ways of setting up a question ih physics.You can never be sure exactly what questionsare going to come up." (physics, student 2);

The opposite extreme to the most strategicstudents is demonstrated by the transcripts Ofstudents in the least strategic category (n=20).These students do not use selective effort -inrelation to assessment tasks. They are often notinterested in obtaining a good degree. The assess-ment_System is typically- externalized and reified:the students possess confidence in its reliabilityand Validity as_a_means of classification._ Theythink_ that the impression they Make Oh staff Willprobably not affect their grades; they may or maynot speak_of using specific examination techniques.

A very small number of stbdent6 from this cate-gory Can be further classified as cue- deaf.- Nearlyall students in the prusent investigation, hb%74evet,revealed at least a modest acquaintance with the ideathat some students might be able to influence theirgrades_by a judicious choice of assessment techniques.The following extracts examplify the least strategiccategory:

2 5 7

174

Students' Pxperienees of Learning

Just revise early;_try_and_ read through everything once... I would have thought that (the staff's) impression ofyou couldn't affect -your degree to any great extent.(physics, student II).

You get this stuff about examination bias and all therest of it but I don't really think that teachers arethat naive as to let their personal feelings about thatperson influence ille111 in any way. (psychology; student 4

L'm not sure how they do go about marking essays andthings like that. I mean they might just go off what isthere, but they could bear in mind, perhaps, if you didn't

t seminars ... I'm not sure; (English, student 38).

in in Ling up projects) as long as you get down all thefacts you can, without padding it out too much, followingsome sort of given, you know, they give you what theythink they_want; and you try and follow the list; then_Ithink that's What they want. (engineering, student 8).

I! he you think the impression staff get of you couldaffect your degree result?St No, it's out ;:ort of; the way I could work at all.If I do something I do it because I want to, not becauseI might get a 2i instead of a 2ii, or something, That'snot particularly important to me. (history; student 2).

The_largest_gioup of students (n=28) was classi-fied as intermediate. Some of the students werevery difficult to classify; inevitably; doubtfulcases have regressed to this category Some studentswere almost "beyond" cue-seeking, being fully awareof the - possible biases of the assessment system:, butdetermined to go their own way and study what theywanted to study; despite any harmful effect on theirdegree result; others were hardly conscious of theassessment "game" at all., except for an occasionalsuggestion in their interviews that they might bedwaru that perfect objectivity in gtading did notexist. This category cc'rresponds to cue-conscious-ness for students in some -of the departments: therewas an awareness of the effects of impression-manage-ment; and an understanding_of the presence_of cuesto examination topics displayed by 'hese students;without active and consistent attempts to seek outcues and make favourable impressions on staff beingshown.

158

I think it's a fay arable impression (that -staff get ofme)... If people know you, know your capabilities and

175


how you it you're writing a question theyread_into it a lot o: the_time what they know you'meant... t think it L:in liaVe adv-zintageS. Although itshouldn't really. (independent studies; student 5).

II you really make yourself noticed it could have aneffect (on degree results),... but I don't think it'ssignificant in my casd. Student 13).

The. Main technique is to study past pai-7.-eraas many as you can get hold of and for as long as you'vegbt the time the study of past papers is veryessential. (engineering, student 2).

There's a lot of bluftTing_ involved (in seminars). Ifyou just know basically WhOt you'ce supposed to betalking about

, and throw a few intelligent comments inonce in a while; you can create c;uite a goodhot the impression coUldn't affect my degree result much

I'm .1 close friend of -my tutor; but I don't play ohit. (history, student 13)

Yiu have to talk in seminars; and they hear What you say,and they can make a lot of inferences about you fromwhat you say. And also; of course; from_ other thingslike your appearance and the way you speak, the way youput yourself over Theyknow I know_my stuff and thatl_speak when i've got something valuable to(hnglish, stOdent 6).

(Lectures are useful to get) 0 person's idedS, possibly,sometimes you get the lecturer's view on it; lnd youthink ah; that could come in handy for khowi.,g Whatshe thinks, playing the game or something. (psychology,student 2).

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN DEEP AND SURFACE APPROACHESTO STUDYING

Tae major conclusion of Laurillard's resarch _

(Laurillard 1978) waa that students' strategies andapproaches to learning were context-dependent:dichotomised descriptions of learning_such as deep/surf2ce couId not be applied to indiVidual StUdentsbut could be used to describe students in particularlearning E.,tuatiOns. It is nevertheless possible tomaintain that While students are influenced by thedemands of learning tasks and their contexts theymight also have relatively stable preferences forone zipproac:h or the other. There seems to be nological flaw in this argument for consistency and

176159


variability in approach (Entwistici 1979).The Interview transcripts were therefore examined

again in order to see whether consistent differencesbetween individuais_couid be identified:, despite thefact that every student had mentioned the use of bothdeep and surface approaches. The following judge-ment instructions Were developed in order to makeexplicit the grounds for classification:

1. What general approach to studying is mentioned?e.g. "I usually find that I ,.."

"I generally try to ..."'On the whole I am able to ..."(see student 7, historyi below; for amore extended example)

If generally deep, classify as deep: ifgenerally surface, classify as surface.

2. What is the relationship between intention andprocess?i.o: Dees the student speak of succeeding incarrying out deep intentions (classify as deep),or_does_he contrast intention and process?(classify as surface)

3: Does the student concentrate in _his responseson the technical aspects of studying whenasked about how. he goes about studying?e.g. "I read this page, then I turned to the

back of the book and spent ten minuteslooking up the index .;." (- surface)

4. Does the student make a distinction between themerely technical and the actual process ofstudying? (classify as deep)

5. Is academic !:nowledge seen as a part of thestuuent? Is an interest expressedin learningfor learning's sake? (classify as deep): .Doesthe student talk of the excitement of learningtr ' express.a desire to learn? Is_he able to

fluentty about the process of learning. tiabove)i as if it had been reflected onro the interview? (= deep).

6: Is academic knowledge seen as.externali a threata source of distress or anxiety, not part ofoneself, something that happens to the learner?(classify as surface);

160

177


Catc,;orie,; .k 1 t. resemble the differencesdescribed by Salj6 in his studs of the developmentof sidbj,2,iive conceptions of learniny (Sdlje, 1979a,b,c). Learning in the "taken-for-granted" pors-_pectiVe is essentially a reproductive process (c. f,

develOpMeht in Perry's model(1970))3 Learning later becomes; for some experi-elied learners, "themaLizee: the learner becomesaware of the influence of the context of learning,is able t0 contrast Learning "fur life" with learn-injin School, and typically Makes a diStinctionbetween rote learriin(l and "real learning" (tinder-s rid)

distintion bot,deen consistent deep and con-r.sisto-nt .:broaches is perhaps most effectivelyillustrated by sc!:,e rather more extensive extracts

the intervieW transcripts:

. I realize th,rc, there was .1 structure in[u. tnii , the:. were tcaLtilt.: us and it wasn't just .1 load

A .oat's only a r,-.,;:ent, recent realization,erbAp, this term. I start,-.J 10 realize it when I

thA Li, Nn,:lish I'm doing for my :rec ninth, er,i .sc : . ..on, Led L.. pt, 110 1.0 the 110 Ii it

Lo :fle very . loSe to the psycholo;ist, oily he writeli in , ,:reAtive 7 no; not_ creALive A more artisticA:;,1 w'1,.:1 I realLed th.it thoSe Wore So eloSe I

re_Alicd how iiterelated All the topes inwere. And that's when I also read some articles

on erea:i.:Ity: that's when I suddenly realized that,wn pattern on it would probably make a better

.z1.1 A ;:...r,7 ,:tljoyable essay, And the littleAnCdOte is that I 4:.A. An A tor the tirst 0!-;S:0' d nc in the

I ,:arried un. 1 can see Perry as brine;lairly rcIOVAnt and I think, I couldn't have seen him ashein.; relevant unttl J'd ot into Som,. of the Sta:;es my-Soil, So bin: taight about it in .2 first year didn'tredliv heip hidaUse 1 didn't tinders. Hal; what theywere toa.:him:, or I thought; 1 tn0An; .1eW the facts sort01 iut I didn't What was real!y y,:ant 'cos yon can'tunderstand there are tw,, :ides to an argument if that'Swhat yo,l'-e understanding until you see there are twosides ... I've become more interested in the,Idhje::, I think. I've bei:un to understand more o: the,,dble,t, And perhapi4; learned, learned

tklat- caneveryday !lie :ink:cessfully, I MA:lmy 1'v, learned perhaps, perhaps

h,tier wA ol vchod, y, ,,'cadent 6).

161

178

SC-17..dett;

162

of Learninq

SUM:AU:S: I don't_really like seminars anyway.1: Why nal?S: I

don't know, er, they seem lalse to me, they, you'veum; _you all know that: that you're not enjoying them,you're Just the r[ because you have Co , because they'resupposed to be compulsory, your tutor's going to mirk youressays anyway, so you might as well go and show willingbut I don't like seminars ... I think there's a lot of

holher_invaIved [11; er. 1 mean the two practicals count,and it's not just, I don't think it is, just the writingup the report at the end that you hand in I mean thatMight ho alright; lint it's the way you ho about organizingthe practical. 11 you're in a statc and, you go and seeyour tutor; and you say, er, "can't get enough subjects"or "somethlog's gone wrozw".. then, it's nur going to give

you much. I mean you're going to feel like that aren'tyou two inches tall_; and you can't help but think; wellwhen he's making it he's going to remember that learncto him all in a statu, I couldn't really organize it I

think, I fhink they give a tot of worry to people.(psychology, student S).

DELI':

1: What sorts oithings were going through your head asyou were reading it?S: Pleasure at somebbdy being able to handle such a compleK.subjeet as what's wrong with society with greatlucidity and clarity; admirac ion at his achievement inidentifying the failures of the industrial worldview andyet also positively being able to make positive suggestionsabout what might be done to correct deficiencies ... I__was happy too that it linked in with what I'd been readingabout the development of seience_and scientific traditions.It just really wc.s a book which linked together lots ofdifferent things_that I already knewin one pattern L

was continually linking together. different things.(independent studies, student 29).

SURFACE:1: We do you think you have to ... Do you think there'sany special thing you have to do when you are preparing for

them, revising for exams?S: Um; definitely going through problem sheets and theworked solutions and that. I suppose to find out;_ that

way; you came across, all tho likely combinatrons of things

they're going to stick in; like_rotten things ... Then youconcentrate more on the, ins and outs of the problemsrelated to this part of the course. You know what mightthe prob, what might the er, what shall I say; roam; awkwardparts they are going to put in, you go through the past

179

Stililents' illxpuriencts!ll uY Learnim;

pi b oji sheC you u, see what, ins, intricate lILLLcpiecesthcy arogoin),. to put_ini_yon l_alow to try and foolyou d:Id that (engineering;, student 7).

DEEP: I though, that wig.; .iuite an iMC0170tiCiti$; (essay)

actually, hncinso it was somethir,! like "What scope isthere for individual initiative is a gronp?"; and that_makes me think; oh what; [Is -c's .filite a few terms you've

to sort_ out here, cr, thing, how canyou take it, and I decided that.; you canme dnin freedom to act independently of the group andiiiiti.itive freedom to think independently of agroup. And I Look that_sort of lino oil It Whith I

thought would be a bit different know how boring itmust be to mark thirty_essays all the ,ame AC first I

was a bit ; -I thought, Ott Cod, how out 1 going LO start,don't rOallyknowWhere my emphasis lies -at the momentbefore I've done a bit of work vii it. f know roughlythat I'm ;oing to do this ireedom to act/freedom to thinkbit, how does it interrelate? So I just started reading,on the first chapter I think it was On that book called%Coups". and, el- it was a good chapter 'cos it organisedall the readings that were to_follow it was done by thteditors themselves ... Which led me off to the readingsin that, all, which led me oft to further articles; and atthe end of it. making notes on my, on the things I wasreading, l had a great wad of it which, by that time; Ihad an idea how my initial conception of the probleMcould be uai,d co sort out all the information I'd now got.

it all gOrtoffitted together quite nicely. _'CosALIO:. as 1 was writing was thinking about hOW I was

going N.). how the final prOduct was going to come aboutand, er, that sort of directed my_reading in fact; I'dread something and I'd think: well. hi:WS this fitting inWith what I've thought,Iboutso far, and once got tothat stage I'd thinks -well; where do I go from here. Andso I was using what I'd just read to determine what I'dread next, and I kept going until I had to go to bed:(psychology; student 5)

SURFACE: You look for different people!s ideas; thedifferent authors'_ideas, and compare, then sort of workout what you think'srelevant yourself ... I find it_difficult trying to work out_in my own mind what I thinkis relevant, because obviously so many people have writtenpages and pages on one subject, I_find it difficult tofind what's relevant for myself. nrikiiig my owii mind upT find very complicated. You spend such a short p, iodof time the other people have spent year and years(history; student 2).

ISO 163

:students' Exporiencus of Learning

llWAC1.: I !..,1( .0 Icol it's quite a challenge. I

like getting a lot ol ideas, I lit. to find a particularangle for it, make i bit more interesting. IiuL I _tend

to give up on them (essays), I tend to write very confusedessays because I have all those ideas going through myhe . And I wrIte them down, but I don't put them down in,are particular logical sort of plan tend to do

butte:- in because there the coniLsion doesn't_matter so mnc11, as as the relivant. points are there

I don't seem L, de to link ideas together ...(history, student

It is possible to see a logical continuity betweenthe consistent deep category, Pask's concept of ver-satility and strategic study methods, Versatilityin a "thematIzed" learner - shown by the ability toalternate between a grasp of the whole and its impli-cations and the process _of building up_an understand-7

worKing Uirough details is well demonst'atedby this student:

What I tend to do initially on an essay or a ti !'

I will make up perhaps a sh-!: or a long bibi:.1!.2p.ay,depending on whit it t4; or :Joks aad articles that I

think are relevant as source material, and then at firstI'll Lend Lo jin t_go through those one by one, picking outout points which I think are relevant; giving Me somesort of framework to work on. And tueL, .Ther I'vebuilt up quite a large body of note1; puh_:, y; from thatithen I'll get to the stage where I've got a very goodidea of how I'm going to organise the essay or thedissertation or whatever.;_and_there'll be particularareas then which I'M looking tor. There may be one ortwo particular points which l_want to see what Ot.nerpeople have written about. Anu so_wher,! previously I'vebeen going through the source material perhaPs one byone in_a rather general way; then get down to morespecific detailS (independent student 6),

Similarly, the concQpt of strategic study.,1eLhods implies an ability to choose the most effect-

' strategy for the task in nand (sometimes thism, pit mean taking a surface apprcuch) ,,n-td an aware-nessof 'he purpose of the task and the way it relatesto the c irse as a whole.. Coraistent deep_approacheswere foi:nd to be positive.. and significantly relatedto s...1.-tegie study metaods (Ramsden, 1981) .

Tn the it-smainder of this chapter we shall examinesome functional relationships between the categoriesthat have been identified in the previous analyses.We Shall deal first witP students' perceptions of the

164.

181

t;tiiiients' Experiences of Learning

relationships l'otwett different subject areat andt:LiaLegies of learninit.

OP LEARNING IN 'rERENT SUBJECT AREAS

Wu have ,;Uun that the subjective MeaningsALLachild to the sub-eaLegOries of deep and sur;aceapt differ from one subject arca to another:

--Inction between the arts and science sul-ject.?:eis is related to Patk's descriptions of differ'n;:-AYLesand_strategies of learning' It seems thatdifterent subj,.1ct are-at Make differcnt_demandp

,.)n

tykes Of t_-r-tegy used by students. Although theinterviews did not measure itty108 and strategics oflearning direitly; hiStbry, Englishi and physicsSttidentswureasked whether they felt that there weredirterenees between the ways in which students indifferent s6b)ect areas studied. To _what extentdid the tttud,q1Ls themselves perceive differ-bribes inthe type ut 1=t1-AL-ugy,uca in arts and sciences; andiii -athe 16rnia.1 contexts provided by the differentkinds of departments?

Learning tasks in Science are typically des-cribed as hierarchical, Logical; heteregenebbt, andrule- ancl. procedUte-governed:

(Science) seem:, L6 be a constant sort of builtling thinethey one week and build on -it ... knowin:; the formula; and using tliat, And applyingitto solveAnother h,rmola, etcetera. (history, student 9).

A lot -at -our scitti is just sort of, you know, teaching us116W arguments, observing certain resUItS,

conc.eptsand how they're rotated, Where-As ... (physics,student W.

It's much mere -exact isn't the right word but inphysics you're right or wrong ..._nere you can't think itit happens. (physics; student

Butacrthe sciences, they have L. be 1-.:ore caltIlating,they have- to know lopeal eOnepts, the: have to knowLogical thing.it a-d how an answer will c,m our of a cal-culationor a w statements whin haVe been writtendawn. (E)WiTh, student 6).

Arts and sf,cial science tasks; on nu otherhand; are seen to be interpretive, comparative-generalized, more self-coverned, and not as diffiCultor time - consuming:

1_82 165

1.::-:Friences of Learninq

(Arts student I .teem to have a mu.11 easier time of it.

They road a more; al course, they've got to read all

these books, but ... it seems much easier seems to

be just going on and on about what you yourself think ...

In these other subjects you can just sort of go on and on:

"l think this, I think that". (physics, student 5).

1110 work demands, in a way, a completely different

intelligence. For is it's more interpretation, moreAnAlYsis, more penetration into the material ,.. They

hive to :ook ahead to an answer: we have to look inFor English you have to See implicit meaning. 0:nglish,

student 61.

The history or politic:.- student is trying to interpret

made:; the physics student is perhaps being mlie andmore precise whilst the history student is tr.:jug to

geuerali e more the history student Li :1g round

and round, sort of thin. (history, stud... t):

It's hard to explain you're not learnin. something oneweek which 4111 lead you on to something 'se, tend

to Jikip about ... you can see things running through the

lectures, but they're -Ivry sort of tenuous ... it'Snot something that you can build on. (history, student

9).

A lot. of (history) is just hypothesis; why did this guy_

do this? and so on it's a lot less certain. (physic:;;

student

These subjectively-defined differences are sur-prir;ingly similar (the differencesin_workload anddifficulty excepted) to Pask'S definitions ofoperation learners and comprehension learners:

Operation learners pick up rules, metliddS, and details

... (the operation larner) _assimilates procedures andbuilds concepts for isolated topics.

Comprehension I-ur-ers readily pick up an_overallpieuure of the s.bject_matter ... (they) describe the

relationships by .teen topics. (Pask, 1976)

Moreover; althoujh the two subject areas areseen to requir^ different ways of learning, studentsin each field ;1(lree on what the differences are.And both gre,aps relate the differehces they jointlyidentify to charv.cterlstie differences In the environ-ments of arts c.nd science departments, as the

extracts show:

166 183

Students' Expeliences of Learning

In physics, in the .0 s, it's laid nut in the lectures,everythiniz, tLat you do comes down; it's_wrttten on theblackboard, it you Miss the lectures it's very I. min) r i:111 ,really, because you miss out whole sections of the courses..,:hercas with the art:- vole could to a certain dcgrc.2. I

think, be given A rt ding list and an e3sily list, an-! belett to tutorials and seminars ... just left to do it AIyoursell, with guidelines being set through thetutorials ... It's guidelines in the arts, in the sciences;i! 's just lines ;:long which you have to work. here'slu ;;ttidiug you have to do this, and you're not givenany treedom of expression. (physics; student 12).

There is a big division between science and arts. Myfriend does bioloi,y, and she seems -to have to learn somany more facts than us, and there's so much more pressure,especially this }roar. She's always being given exams; atthe beginning of each term; so she has tb week hard in the

and yoti've got lots and lots of assignment. todo each w,.e1,. and the actual exam is a vastShe ean'c_ just_revise particular ;topics, because there'sa multiple (exnntitition). Sometimes she just hasto memorLo tames, and things_ like that. I know sometimes she fec!s that she'd like to be able to think abit more about things, critically ... It's rich morespeciti, kind-of silljeet, it's more systemat.le; we'relett to wirselves a lot ... we Imve much my work to dooutside the actual set hour::. (English, sti bent 5).

Ve do a lot more work than they do ... more often than not,you hear people sy; "Oh; 1. I get an extension for myessay for another two weekE dr something; if we askedfor an extension for our tutorial sheets, we'd he threeweeks behind ... (physics) is far more relevant to lifethan the study of history is. Admittedly; if you canSee what's gone on in the past, you can, it might helpyou, but whereas if you get :1 :.;C:clu:IC.! degree you can godirectly into a scientifL, job :iictory degrees,there isn't much you can :JO fr.i)i teaching, if youspecifically want to use his:or.) .. 'They perhaps don'ttake it as seriously; I don't it perhaps means asmuch to them as ours does. (physics: student 11).

We call hand it in -arid compare it with some other guy,right or wron, wits fellow students; but there it seemsto b just );eing arni on about what you yourself think,so y.01 can't really compare it waft other students to seewhit they thought of it. (physics; student 5).

leeture timetable is pretty sparse, whereas I've got_atriend who does eifilicering; and he's got days just lull

1S4 167


of slut!. hot I've of to do a hell at a lot more reading.

I go Lo a lecture and it just introduces me to a subject,whereas he. I suppose, guts an awf,d lot of it fromseminars. practicals, and so on. re. gets a lot moreitttormat ion; whereas I get an introduction to it. I

;Tose . (history, student. I I).

(In science) I Chink you have to learn things you don'twant to learn a lot more than in English; you can'tselect asmuch, because it all fits together. (Englishstudent 38).

These contrasting descriptions of tasks and con-texts certainly support the view that Pask's conceptseffectively measure differences betweeu_subject areas.Subject area and learning strategy are functionallyrelated in the students' subjective conception-.The match is remarkably accur=ate and makes geI;ent;e: :;cience departments are seen to ri-we. !cargoals; greater vocational relevance; less _f;:eedom inLearning, and more formal teaching; all these thingsmake for an environment in which serialist strategiesare encouraged (and probably rewarded); while thereverse is true for arts students and in artsdepartments Although both science and arts tasksmay require both types of learning strategy (we haveseen that the ability to alternate between the twois a characteristic of some competent learners); themixture is different. The students relate t:,edifferences in learning strategies_to the way inwhich the departments arc organized, as much as toinherent differences in the subject matter. Amatching process; whereby studc.rts w'th a preferencefor comprehension learning gravitate towaids artsdepartments; and operation learners towards scienceuepartments, presumably takes place. It wouldseem that the distinctions are continually reinforcedat university

THE EFFECT OF TIIE LEARNING CONTEXT ON STUDENTS' LEVELSAPPROACH

Another important objective of the interviewana -Qis was the exploration of posible relation-

_etween students' perceptions of the cpnLextof learning and their levels of approach to learningtasks. Eow do students exolain the fact that the -'take different approaches to different tasks?

168 183


Per students in all the depoi-tments, the gualityof Juacning and the eXtent Lo wliicli Staff lave helpand advice mn apprmaches to studying were related togmnerally 'avmnrahle mr unfavmurablia ,ittithdeS to-wards !earning and stui.slts' interest in what theywere studying. The Iollmwing extracts froth theinterviews imuivide eNampleS of these relationships:

a Interest in sttdeuts; helpiultess ol ieahina

Certainty dn't it it you uet itortls where th-ekis I, sit: .111,1 111.1k ,ti you stand

Hp arid di: the Work on 'he blackboard. t:sually he picks'ti people that can't do it; whick I [hunk tSbecause yo,i stuck up at the blackboard and made to_Bilk A tO61. And it switches you of I chiukPA it, do fAif it this guy's going to It that lo

, Ause I don't le. ru .inythinff; nobody else le a r11 Sanytbin OeCAlUle it Likes you so to do qu,stion:and it you Yery Unhappy with that particularcourse, so I Iosc interest in [he course. (physics,student l21.

lin,' that the courses I do most work . ar clue courseswhere I_ get on with the tutors best ... A tutor can putyou otf the subject ... some of them don't like students;s they're noLiutere,Led. iu what students have to s;:yunless relevant 1.0 approAcb.student 18).

Luckily I'm doing ssme courses with some aee,, tutors on[hem ul know, !::..2y make the 11,wks aomo al i0, heaUSOthey can talk abOilt rhoiii direct you Lc al211ptlr Or paStiagO, Ond .you ould si-ond an hour r i and then justeorio [o what von Clink I:, of allYonta f,-m ; aid I'm quiteIn having someone wI In iii tne IA , t IC 11 ILgodsend. (history. student 5).

(b) Comaa:cment co the subject

If they (tutors) have enthusiasm, [hen real!fire[heir Own students with the subject, and the s'.udeutsreallypick if up really ;,00d at -arid otijoysubject) but [hat' i-J a particular tutar I'vehad hai-I 1i-eau: so euthlsiastic that Le'ti given me :-:(1 en-thnsiai4m for IL and new I really love the suhiyct. ButAt the he:;inniu,; 01 ,another course) Ihe tutor win ..

186169

ic_qtLia.:-; U I I..oat-niii()

HY

I it ii tutu; larking in Lit

r L. i I st It .

." 1."..1 I

a ' , ' . OV it it 's tit i gen-: .TI 1:1' t . I ; I he hasa I

: Tit ... a the It',': it's. mentioned what an

0i. oh a . is, lea a., w.ly 01 Lel I i ng how lo work ILput iu a formula to get the eigen energy, but

ei:Leotun.tfaa. it's applicable or noL,

t::.re's no WAY at knowing. (raySics, student 5).

'ty .rit isms will he ...el.,. 0.osely aligned to, I think,

iliZ lick .i-.11pathy that s me of the stall have about the

tovels al the students relative to their subject.

':t rel t ic. ti h0ing able to be good enough to be at.OHOiSity, i: you like, but relative to rhe_fact_that the.:1 tete ka.,...dedec that they have is virtually nil in some

too its that we've _talked at, at a very high level.atta0h anything that you've been told to

it t' that you al.,.tdy know, which of course is a very

tut_ it Icarniw2. .., I think it's the overall

; le::: o t ac Oft it'll H Tait tilt in and having to give011 their particular interest, and

n a Wt' ,,t knowledge in that area_ thatit it love' . 'hunt's what I thinklit0y've gone so far into their own area that

y":, mu_..oftea that we know nothing, essentially, Com -

w' them. (psychol,gy, student 7).

leeturi iii

5. oaaoepts are really difficult anyway. ft_usually

t think most people like. I certainly like to sit

hwn oa mv ,tad go -it my own sp,.!d. Now the lecturers(2::1a : 1.11. Wt! L and they just keep going.

T';T e caa s.t!,; "slow down" but people of course are11. I ant I t !icy don' t uride: st,?ad it. he tends::.cp and once you behind IL, yen know, you

t-O.T I I ::et hack on terms. (ens:incur ing, student .

::. e doin,L i.tirivr analy,:itT, arid Lhe lecturere u t i 'dos.s i n : 7 that i t was some., hing ithttclt they used

l i t ey t iii iii t Ttloon pi c L. res hack to earl' . t; .0A 101 0: di:terence, vou can I i being used

*:: :ior ey..mlitl,2 ritiet,' is about why when you hang aye: .,,L I it T i t sounds. rzithet LIT :in when

-I .; , 1 .1.. i wh one note .

.,;,. Carl see why - and he was

187

:ktUdOnt-S' LY.periences of Learning

riAt , I see why, tt aid mak, (physi,s,student ;

(,) FCL111.1, i. ,11 pC1'1,11111.111,:l1

n An c,;SAy :n I 1n kW(' At the l'canniw.: it

the s,:,:na team and I didn't yyt ;hose ha. .1: till thisterm .., v.ul know, it's A hit ult., when you'rewritial the Hest es:;ay, bra ans, y,11 want 1.,/ know where

ou'_ ue W1,11,1 tutu the points 111.1A hAvc been Alright.. By the time you've pot it back atter waiting A wholeti m you've torcotteu what it's all about and it doesn't:really 7:1,111 much then.. (Engl:sh, std iota ii).

Unfavourable attitudes to studinq; lack ofinterest, and, sighificantly, surface approaehes, wererelated by the students to deficiencies of the ossess-

nt sy-ita (L.,specially inappropriate assessmentmotho,is) , ro.ltri,-ted opportunities for self -di rection,Uhl :caa wor}:Load:

Inappr.yri a o .1,1:1,5:4Ment MCL110A1i

I look at (the topic) and I think to myself, "Well, I

can do that it an be bothered ti hunt through hundredsot te-::.thOoks and do the work" - And you sort of relatethat. to :he value of the work in the coukse, which isvirtually ::ere because it's so much exam assessment ...I ii:St hother with it until the exams come around... my revision is basically for the oxams_, purely andsimply Aimd at passing the exams without bothering toomuch About .studying the subject. (physics, student 12).

In independent studies you've -tot CO do the kourseworkand it's trot 1_, he good. ,jhereAs I know sunk' historystude.:ts who've just got phenomcnally good memories andhave i,ot a very gook k2xam teclaiique, and did very littlerevision, and just got good marks on the basis of,_ youknow parror.-fashion learning. ..independent studios,

In this ,....partment, it (the dc ign) tails that's like ablack mark. P. sb.,uldn't be ... the l'rcrich civilengine, who was leadi:kg authority on thede,' ;:k ct sail :!.ere wits more be learned fromlai It than sncress. He's right of course. Soif you nave A tAiltti..!, Lroviditig -.)u can .kccuunt for it,then Co MC tints'_; A1, valid as something that passed.(engine,ring. student 2).

18& 171

69T

1, 11:711777 1j; 7; 71; 77 I., 7

.'s.:11-, 0111 ti! .1 I do .1 :la ..1

j : :1.1o. .'.t!! .1,1,11. 1,, j ; I :

ti! or; Ii :, ; t I .1

,1!7',T I!: t:-rti.,d-; t: , : :

111 Tq ;

SbUT-aci ot.:1 L:( TC,c4.1; : % '1 .3opn-) tr:111- (Tr ; ; 0 1:

01 moos po-rprIls or; 1 U! (I')1 ,,p : 1:: ;0 UIUI L;-,:;n1u, 71 : 17.7('

' f", II: ',Caolti !II) j 1:1 ,c1 ; ; ,t.

,.1:1 1 1. tt:!1 '.;t1 1!. V.!

II IIdI ii! !:.c1!1!) )!;!,i ;

III s, 1! I it ,i,;10 !Tul II j 17 1,11 I; 7,1 17 7, I 1;1

11(11'11.1)d 111'111 /77111 t.1U 1 ! q777-.7 ,177.

JAI 1' ,77,1 I t17171 I 77-77,7.; 1 177 X171.71,71 111. ; 1: 17 .7 7. ,

1 1; .71; 1.1 171111.71I7'11 7.177,7 lj 7 17 77 ,

77

7,1 II I 71,1 7.1 1-7 111 I 7/1 I'U II j1 17 77.

I ,777

171171 171:1111-1 1177,1; 111` I711.71,1j; 770.; , I 7,7 , ; ,7 7!, 111 11,11;11. I p7,17 7 (1 1!1; 1 111 1177 .1 :1 '77 1

77,1 7717 1, III 1177.7 1177 .711177.7 17.. ,6, I

n. 1 1! It rut ti. :.11,t1 .17 1 1 .

1N1' 'I II I U II Ilil put 1:

1111 1 ) Ui i '111 I Ii 1:1 ;

d ,111) III 1! ! :. -.: ; 1:1

pi; ,,t! 3:

I I T 0 1 / 1 7 1 1 ' '111 / 71 I T I jjl .,1.1 II I 7 ;

717 'I 11411! 1,1;17.7 I 11111 II.'1111! 771.7,11'7; jj 7, 7

S-11; IX., 111 111;11.17 77.'177;717 .,77 1 15. I 1 1.11 !I ;

Ii 1S5 II Ill ,ti.1 1777 '7', I "I .7 I.

51.11.01 711 1111',171 II 7,' II 11.7777 .111 It 11'1 I 177 .7,1171 77771 17.7,7'. r ; 1 1 1 ; , ! 11 1 11 1 1 } 171,71 7; I 11 7; 1 771! 7 ; ; !

17:7-117/..1 1117 '7 .1101;1 1177 7,7 ' 17,111 1, ;',. 71;..

71711'71M! 1-1 7/7p T.., 1 II 1 1(1',,, .1, , . :; ,t pur

IIII! I!'1 151 0:i ;

1! - .11, rtil pm. ltipi Pm' ;?': '''! '.1 I I 111 III 1 It !H. J 1; I

,(1 151111. 1,t1,,,-", I - '411,1 ;; . I:,

lu.,111,:so!;:. .19. : ; ,i - 1.11511 ii 1I'ql ; ),1.1!,.1 ;',,11:1 ,:,

''!"!i I" i I I t1)

!".).1.1.,) jy,

uJon t s ' xpo r " Learning

iiI pmi!;ibi I i v or I hn work yours, It

t t . I hi. ;id :i;i1 t ttu Pt d Pre'II I in.xesled readilw, and suggested

111,1.,,Ach,s in idH.endent studies; so yoit have Co beHIA7 ire int....rested enough and lull it

.! I iii Ii ilticti whenwholi 10,0 1,1 ')

it II II y,II Ii tI dcrs .111,1

i it's cammi wen I u . .

'Idepeodent st tiiP, st tidPiiI Ji

c.iarity of joi1sIt I I nit ttc were also related

.:tudent:: to : , ulra:Jle oi_unfovourable atti-t tijo:a and t It t hit r if ,:111 learnersIt IL Ii their dopartmL,n:

Tho ,dalont 's inteioSt. in an ac,demic task (orstudyinq 7. particular

I to! hls prim pos:-_-,ession of somo Under-Standingd the !jell or i In Which a task is sitUatec

.1111,I to he .u;intoioted with the probability of:oop .11,1,1 toil to the Lit*. FOr example:

inteest

It I :t titO i;:frestin:, there wasn't that mnolt ihere.I t reaain it re:lily intently, it was more skimm-

ha: throu:t11 I k iii lOr rert:1111 wyrds. science, therevolutiota; dates as well, just to sort of

the points that I wanted. (history, studentI

I: :)0 you ary to get a graspof thv, the whole thing'»Ilco you're teading an artielo; or .;.?YcJu, I try, I try to, I don't often. qometimes,'pink whit it's about, or I try to.

I: ;hit y,u tind it difficult?!aIII I wouldn't 3ay I fo:tnd everythmig, I would

I I,tunI I ,,trnd it difti 1111 ac,ordng to wlbtit was about. I me;-, the I t lye readinF , wastelIiog you about, I ;,t_ist couldn't be bothered topay Attention and see how one argument 01.) n!ctedwit h t he ot her. . -:chology, student 8).

I nit coutuin, (this subject). Wi'cn t 0mes COessays. beeans, I'm not very interes'ed in it,

tet:l rnsh t'iroall the books I'm reading tor tly essays,t still don't really ,..derstand it when I've il::shed

173

:ftudLffitLf' Experietif2es iii Lc.irninq

flo

174

c.iI it ,od Ileac'.; sioli A Itt of information

1 tnink u calf citir.i ov,rsimPlif:2 fo ffo info too nnich.

detail. And I think I tend to oversimplify. (Inlish,student

Mlle best way to study) is to go through some work, andtfy dod g;t some solations. It's diflicult. IL depends

on how well one knows the subject as well. IL's easy to

write questions for something you know well. You just

sort ot plod through And try and understand bits here andthere in something you dont know. (engineoring,, student

l).

I think it I already know something abort the subjectAbout which I want to write, it helps. Because then I

can write something out without having to reler to thehooks first, sketch something ofit in much more detailratlwi than 'fist ... this question was aboutpopular recreatio, and were aLtiLndes to them clifinging.

having beep onnded in Folklore a consumingpassion for Hu, I. _ eight ye:irs I know gnats a lot

About that. alread. tio I kiat kind of wrote out 3 or

:,00 words whieh ve d basis fOr it ... menially I was

muck more twin .iccemplishing something useful.(history, stn.' I).

he actual quf_ ' -ii was A particle in a box, askin,.,, you

want shape it ild describe ... we have come across atsimilar prob In chemistry ... I know, I had a picturein my mind's ,71 what I vas doing; MoSL definitely.I could see IL : think that_ is possibly because I'vealready do it in ehemistry, awed if I hadn't I'd just1:AV.0 f_11010;nr_ it a lot of' figures and a lot of complicaLed-looking formatae, and left it at that. (physics,

:-ftodetic i).

It was like ono of the questions from a previous course,ohien I could rHate. ft wain a Schroedinger eqration forA particle in A box whi4 I we'd solved generally before inchemistry. so 1 could reiaLe could see a picture ofwhat. I wanted. I knew basically what sort of answer I

should met, anu from chat I could work my way through itquite simply, sin problva

The other bit was differL,Lf I couldn't do it. liasically

I gay- uf, with IL, because it was a function, which I'venever really understood : looked at it and I thought"That foks complicated" .._. if_ .:gas very short; it looked _

like it would nee- a lot of rearranging.(physics, student 6).

191


Prom an entirely different standpoint, a recent studyof students' attributions of reasons for success andfailure in essays and examinations has produced com-plementary results. Interest (or the lack of it) inan essay was found_to be the most commonly attributedreason for a good (or poor) level of performance init (ilughes-Jones; 1979).

A somewhat more unusual_finding is the closeassociation revealed in the interview transcriptsbetween good_teaching;:favourable attitudes, and(by implication) the conditions for deep levelapproaches. The accepted view has been that qualityand type of teaching is unrelated to student learn-ing (see, e.g., Dubin and Taveggia, 1969); Recentevidence (Hartnett_and Centra; 1977; Centra, 1976;Fearn-Wannan, 1979) does; however; seem to suggestthat student satisfaction with teaching, and per,-ceptions of lecturers' student-orientation, may bepositively related to student achievement.

STUDENTS' ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

LbVOIS of approach and strategic study methodsare known to be positively related to the outcomesof learning measured either qualitatively or quan-titatiVely (See Marton and .51j8;_1976a; Miller andParlett; 1974; Svensson, 1977; Sa"lj6, 1981). -Thefinal section of this chapter looks at relationshipsbetween outcomes and two of the categories derivedfrom the interview analysis: consistent deep orsurface approaches and strategic_ study methods. Weshould expect deep approaches and highly strategic_methods to correlate positively with the measure of

outcome used (degree result).Final degree classifications were obtained for

the student sample, after each student had beencategorized on the approach and strategic dimensions.It was possible to obtain the results of all bUt

three students. (At least one of the_three - classi-fied as consistent surface withdrew before finalassessment). The results were coded by the con-ventional dichotomized measure of good degree (Firstand Upper Second Class Honours) vs. other degree(Lower Second or below).

1;1 cqp:vcioh (md tigreo renult

Tables 8;2 and 8.3 give the degree results and inter-view classifications of the_42 students who could beplaced into the consistent deep or surface categoriesand for whom degree results could be obtained. The

176

193


pattern of the rutuLionhip is clearly in the hypo-thesized direction. Only 5 of the 16 surfacestudentS achieved Firsts or Upper Seconds, while 16of the 2G deep students gained good degrees.

mct%/o,i (yid acfp,

These results appear in Tables 8.4 and 8.5.Table 8.4 shows that strategic_methods are positivelybut weakly- associated with good degree results.The size of the relationship is reduced by the -large"intermediate" category; which contains severalstudents who were difficult to classify. Comparisonof the two extreme groups reveals_that_five of thesix most_stratogic students gained good degrees.Table 8.5 shows that the difference between the meandegree results of the most and least strategicstudents is statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

__The_results presented in this chapter have con-firmed the remarkable explanatory power of the quali-tative methods first extensively used in theGothenburg investigations of student learning. Inparticular, they have demonstrated clear functionalrelationships between the context_ of learning - thetype of task, the quality of teaching, and thecharacteristics of academic departments - and theapproaches students use.

The next chapter returns to the quantitativedata collected in the survey of students' approachesto studying in order to examine these eddcationallyimportant connections from another standpoint.

Table 8.2 LEVEL OF APPROACH AND DEGREE RESULT

APPROACH

Result Deep Surface Total

Good degree 16 5 21

Other degree 10 11 21

Total 26 16 42

2(Corrected-

2= 2.52 ; p (one- tailed} <.06

177

194


Table 8: 3 NEAN DECREE RESULTS FOR DE" AND SURFACE STUDENTS

(n =42)(where deep = 1, surface = 2, geed d-egt-62 = 1;

other degree = 2)

Group Mean S.D. p (one-tailed)

Deep 1.38 .50-1.95 .03

Surface 1.69 .48

Table 8.4 slibvrEGIc STUDY METHOD AND DEGREE RESULT

STRATEGIC METHOD

Result MOSt Strategic Intermediate LeastStrategic

Total

Good degree 14 8 27

Other degree 1 14 12 27

Total 6 28 20 54

= 3:47 n.s.

Table 85: MEAN DEGREE RESULTS FOR MOST STRATEGIC AND LEAST

STRATEGIC STUDENTS (n = 26)

Group Mean S.D. T p (one-tailed)

Moststrategic 1.17 .41

-1.92 .03

Leaststrategic 1.60 .50

178 195

Chapter Nine

APPROACIU TO LEARNING IN CONTRASTING DEPARTMENTS

The development of instruments designed tomeasure students' perceptions of their courses andtheir_approaches to studying was_described in_chap-tors 4 and 7. The next stage of the researchexamined possible links between the scales of thetwo questionnaires suggested by previous researchand by the result:: of the student interviews (chapter8). In what ways might contrasting academic con-texts affect approaches to studying? The interviewshad identified functional relationships betweenlevels of approach and students' perceptions of theteaching and assessment they experienced; it wasalso clear that the way students tackled academictasks was related to the subject area in which theystudied.

The intention of the_next part of the investi-gation was to test the validity of these connections,and to try to disentangle the effects of subject areaand departmental organization, by using a _contrastingmethodology: the statistical treatment of quanti-tative data from a large sample of students.

METHOD AND PURPOSE

The results described in this chapter derivefrom the_servey of 2208 students in 66 departmentsof engineering;_phySics; economics, psychology;history and English carried out in 1979-80. Studentscompleted both the approaches to studying inventory _

and the course perceptions questionnaire; the methodsused are presented in more detail in chapter 4. Thescales of both instruments and their meaning aregiven in Figure 9.1.

This chapter is based on chapter 6 in Ramsden (1981).

179

196

Approaches to Learning in Contrasting Departments

Figure 9.1 SUBSCALES rHE INVENTORY AND QUESTIONNAIRE

Subscale Meaning

Deep approach Active questioning in learningRelating ideas Relating to other parts of

courseUse of evidence Relating evidence to conclusionsIntrinsic motivation Interest in learning for

learning's sakeSurFace approach Preoccupation with memorizationSyllabus-boundness Relying_on staff to define

learning tasksFear of failure Pessimism and anxiety about

academic outcomes _

Extrinsic motivation Interest in courses for thequalifications_they offer

Strategic approach Awareness of implications ofacademic demands made by staff

Disorganized study methods Unable to work regularly andeffectively

Negative attitudes to studying Lack ofinterest and applicationAchievement motivation Competitive and confidentComprehension learning Readiness to map out subject

area and think divergentlyGlobetrotting Over-ready to jump to con-

clusionsOperation learning Emphasis on facts and logical

analysis

Improvidence Over-cautious reliance ondetails

Formal teaching methods Lectures and classes moreimportant than individual_ stud:

Clear goals and standards Assessment standards and endsof ;studying clearly Defined_

Workload Heavy pressures to fulfil taskrequirements

Vocational relevance Perceived relevance of coursesto careers

Good teaching Well-prepared, helpful, committe.teachers

Freedom in learning Discretion of students tochoose andorganizeown work

Openness to students Friendly staff attitudes andpreparedness to adapt tostudents' needs_

Social climate Quality of academic and socialrelationships betweenstudents

180

197


_ The itiaLyses were des caned to investigate thefellbWirig :luestions:

1. To What extent can differences in students'appro hes to studying ani_perceptions of thecontext o learning by explained (a) by type ofdiscipline studied (b) 111 type of department;after controlling for cubject area?

2. What links between the two sets of scales canbe identified by means Of factor analysis?

3. Using departments a:: units of analysis ratherthan individual students, what associationsbetween orientations to studying and course per-ceptions can be_identified? In Other words,do contexts of learning appear to influenceapproaches to studying?

Do sow approaches to studying seem to be _

rewarded wnre highly (in terms of Self-,ratedperfOrmance) in some contexts than in others?

DIFFERENCES IN STUDENTS' APPROACHES IN CONTRASTINGSUBJECT AREAS

FrOM previous work, including the interviewstudy, it was expected that comprehension /earningwould_be found to be more OOP-it-Oh in the arts andsocial science disciplines than the sciences; whilethe reverse_ would be true of operation learning.The two pathologies of learning would also bedifferentially related to subject_ area_ (although theinterview- results showed that both path-el-Ogles couldbb identified in science and arts students): improvi-dence should be more in evidence in science; andglobetrotting in arts. The four sub-scales makingup the meaning orientation scale (deep approach;relating ideas;_use of evidence; and intrinsicmotivation) would provide evidence of disciplinarydifferences if the interview results were to bereplicated: De6p approach, intrinsic motivation,and relating ideas items are more characteristicof arts and social_science approaches; while the useOf OVideribe subscale is more descriptive of scienceapproaches to learning_tasks: _Earlier work hadalso suggested that science students would be morelikely to be extrinsically motivated and syllabus-bound (Entwistle and Wilson, 1977): The remainingsubscalas were not expected to show large differencesbetween subject areas.

181

198


tible 9:1 NEANN NUBSCALES BY SUBJECT AREA

St',112 Mean(1)

(2)

(3)

ScienceSocialArts

S.D.

science

Analysis ofVarianceF (df 2; 63)

Deep approach (1) 10.21 .90

(2) 10;53 ;81 8.41**

(3) 11.28 .67

Relating ideas (1) 9;55 .95

(2) 10.54 .77 9;47**

(3) UL35 .75

Use of evidence (1) 9.83 .54

(2) 9.51 .70 2.51

(3) 9.46 :46

Intrinsic marl.- (1) 8.05 1.26

vation (2) 8.29 1.50 3.12

(3) 9.06 .87

Surface approach (1) 13.13 1.28

(2) 13.23 .94 1.64

(3) 12.60 1.19

Syllabus-boundness (1) 8.96 .64

(2) 8.18 .84 24.82**

(3) 7.22 82

Fear of Failure (1) 5 :87 .74

(2) 5.91 :74 :29

(3) 5.73 .69

Extrinsic moti- (1) 6.93 1.69

vation (2) 6.01 2.01 25.45**

(3) 3;08 1;09

Strategic approach (1) 10.37 .79

(2) 10.27 =55 3.25

(3) 9.80 .85

Disorganized (1) 9.74 .88

Study methods (2) 9.70 1.03 5:19*

(3) 8.77 1.22

Negative_attitudes (1) 5.45 .75

to studying (2) 5;47 .89 .54

(3) 5.70 :63

*tzi .01

**-P 00'

182

199


Table 9.1 (continued) MEANS 01: SUBSCALES BY SUBJECT AREA

Scale Mean S.1).

(1)

(2)

(3)

ScienceSocialArtS

science

Achievement (1) 10.22 .88Motivation (2) 9.45 .87 1M8**

(3) 904 .64

Comprehension (1) 8.09 1.11learning (2) 8.49 1.09 14.16**

(3) 10.03 1.35

ClebecruEEing (1) 7.45 .57(2) 8.04 .57 6 87*(3) 7.48 .74

Operation (1) 10.68 .92Learning (2) 9.91 ;96 12.93**

(3) 9.12 .99

Improviience (1) 7A2 ;90(2) 7.82 .81 5.87*(3) 6.88 .93

* p 4.01_** p k:00l

The differences were examined in two ways. Themean values for each of the subscales by subject area(science_, social science_, and arts) are shown in Table9.I. The means for.. each discipline and each depart-ment were also calculated. It is clear from theaverage scores for departments and subject areas thatoperation learning and comprehension learning are _

associated with types of discipline in the expectedway: operation learning receives higher scores inscience, comprehension learning in arts and socialscience. Globetrotting and improvidence are alsorelated to type of discipline, but less strongly.

Globetrotting is highest in psychology depart-ments, and improvidence in economics departments.Globetrotting is no more common in arts departmentsthan in science ones; On this evidence, it cannotbe unequivocally stated that learning pathologiesare e function of the type of discipline studied.

Deep approach and relating ideas are most

183

200


common in arts and social science departments; con-firmin9 the predictions, but use of evidence andintrinsic motivation are only weakly associated withsubject area, although in the expected directions;The other large differences between subject areas arein the subscales of syllabusboundnessi extrinsicmotivation, disorganized study methods - rathersurprisingly - and achievement motivation. Most ofthese differences conform with the theoretical pre-dictions; for some reasonL however, it would seemthat arts students are less likely to have poor studymethods.

_ -Even when the effects of subject area and dis-cipline are large and significant, it should be__emphasised that there are still considerable differ-ences between individual departments.

FACTOR_ANALYSIS OF THE CPQ AND APPROACHES TO STUDYINGINVENTORY

It will be remembered from chapter 7 that factoranalysis of tile CPQ produced two main factors:positive evaluation of teaching and courses and formalvocational teaching. Analysis of the approaches tostudying inventory had revealed three principalorientations: meaning reproducing; and achieving/disorganized and dilatory. Factor analysis of thetwo sets of subscales together provides one way ofexamining the relationships between students'_ _

approaches and the context of learning in academicdepartments. _

Table 9.2 gives the results of this analysis._Three factors (numbers I,III and V) are recognisableas the main studying orientations; factors II and_IV are the formal-vocational and evaluative dimensionsrespectively; factor -VI describes confident studentswith good entry qualifications. The interviewssuggested that students respond to the departmentalcontext in which they work by- adopting differentlevels of approach. Although there is not a lot ofoverlap between the two sets of scales in thisanalysis, what there is makes good sense when com-pared with the interviewfindings. The reproducingorientation is associated with a heavy workload(factor III), disorganized and dilatory attitudeswith perceived lack of clarity in goals (factor V)i_the evaluative factor with intrinsic motivation anduse of evidence in learning (factor IV), and theformal-vocational factor with extrinsic motivation(factor II).

184


Table 9.2 FACTOR ANALYSLS OF APPROACHES TO STUDYING AND COURSEPERCEPTIONS SCALES (N = 2208)

Factors (54% variance explained)VariablesI II III IV V VI

Academic performunueSchool _ 29Higher education 26 (-20) -45AlTvoach,2:3 to studyingDeep approach 71 (22) -29Relating ideas 67 (21)Use of evidence 52 28 -29 31Intrinsic motivation 64 39 -27 -34Surface approachSyllabus-boundness -38 26

61

53-30

Fear of failure 58 26Extrinsic motivation 47 37 -51Strategic approach 27 -37 -26Disorganized study methods 54Negative attitudes to studying -28 -32 52Achievement motivation -32Comprehension learning 60Globetrotting 44Operation learning 56 -29 -30Improvidence _ 65 -33CO:trO, 1,,:roci,t.tono

Formal teaching methods 75Clear goals and standards 53 38 -25Workload 45 (-23)Vocational relevance 73Good teaching 77Freedom in learning -28 50Openness to students 79Social climate 25 47

Decimal points and most loadings less than .25 omitted

To what extent are the approaches to studyingfactors:, and the relationships between the CPQ andapproaches to studying scales shown in Table 9.2;artefacts of area of study differences in therelationship between learning and its context? Whenseparate factor analyses by subject area are_carriedout (Ramsden azid Entwistle_; 1981) meaning orientation(factor 1) retains its emphasis on syllabus-freedomand its stylistic component of comprehension learning

202 185


across all throe :hibject areas. This approach isroiated to less formal teaching methods in scienceand social science, to freedom in learning and goodteaching, and - in arts - to a good social climateand clear goals. Reproducing orientation (factorIII) is consistently defined in an the.subjectareas. It is_related to a heavy workload. Factor

V, representing a disorganized and_dilatory approachto studyingi is associated with the learning pathologyOf glebotrotting_and, especially, in arts, to com-prehension learning. This suggests that compre-hension learning carried to extremes (and unleavenedby operation learning) in arts subjects may lead to

globetrotting. A similar result was found forcertain arts and social science students in theinterviews. Oh the other hand; operation learningseems to be associated with improvidence in all threesubject areas equally (factor

Factor iv (departmental evaluation) was linked_to positive attitudes and meaning orientation in all

three faculties. This result also conforms withthe interview data.

EFFECTS OF DEPARTMENTAL CONTEXTS ON STUDENT LEARNING

The next step was to examine in more detail therelationships between context and approaches_to _studying while controlling for the effects of subject

areas. The interviews had shown that deep approachesand favourable attitudes to studying were functionr-ally related to students' perceptions of gpod teach-

ing. Unhelpful and uncommitted teaching was thoughtby the students who were interviewed to encouragepoor attitudes to studying and_surface approaches.Surface approaches were strongly associated with per-ceived deficiences in_the assessment system and witha lack of freedom in learning. In spite of thecontrols used in the interview analyses, however,theSe findings were still_to some extent impression-istic and subjective, althbugh the relationshipsappeared to_be important ones. The connectionbetween surface approaches and assessment methodswas in accordance with deductions from earlier _

findings, but the relationship betwen quality of

teaching and deep approaches had not previously been

demonstrated. Indeed, Marton's work had shown howdiffieUlt it was to induce a deep approach experi-mentally (Marton, 1975; Marton and Saljd, 19_76b):

There are hints in the factor analyses that the

same processes identified in_the interviews operatein this larger sample of students. Silt the

186


analysis so Car described are based entirely onindividual students as cases. Clearly, it might beargued, poor students will attribute their inabilityto poor teaching and too_much work - A_morc con-_vinciny explanation would be provided if a unit ofanalysis representing departments rather thanindividual- students; were employed

In order to do this a set of analyses of co-variance was_ performed on the departmental meanvalues of several subscales, students' pre-entrylevels of achievement, and composite variables formedby combininy_aubscales_identified in the factoranalyses. It was predicted that departments whichwere positively evaluated by their students would

(a) have higher meaning orientation mean scores;(b) have lower reproducing orientation mean

scores;(c) have lower disorganised and dilatory mean

scoresthan departments which were negatively evaluated.

Composite variables measuring different orien-tations and evaluation dimensions were formed asfollows:

leaning orientation

Reproducing orientation

Disorganised and dilatoryattitudes

Evaluation variable 1

Evaluation variable 2

Deep approach + relating ideas +use of evidence intrinsic moti-vation

Surface approach + syllabus7boundness+ fear of failure + improvidence

Disorganised study methods + nega-tive attitudes to studying + globe-trotting

Good teaching + freedom in learning

Freedom in learning workload

These variables, all of which are measurementsof departments' mean scores, were constructed afterexamining the results of the factor analyses andalso -took into account the interview findings. Athird evaluation variable was used in the preliminaryanalysis but later rejected. It consisted of open-ness to students + freedom in learning + goodteaching. A preliminary analysis showed. that open-ness to students was unrelated to any of the criterionvariables; it seems to be a measurement of students'satisfaction with the department but does not helpto explain the quality of their learning.

We can summarize the main analysis of covarianceresults as follows. The effects of the evaluation

, 204187


variables on orientations and attitUdOS were similarin all the disciplines (there were no significantinteraction effects).* A heavy workload combinedwith a_lack of freedom in learning was stronglyrelated to an orientation_ towards reproducing in_adepartment's students _(p .001). Meaning orientationwas related to the perceived presenceof freedom inlearning combined with good teaching_in the depart-ment (p <.01). The way_in_which a departmentorganizes its courses; and_its methods of teachingthemi seems to have a considerable effect on whetherits students develop an orientation towards meaning.The effect is positive; one of the central resultsof the interview study_isconfirmed.

The interviews revealed that favourable__attitudes towards studying were associated with goodteaching and with choice over method and content Of

study. The inventory dimension apparently closestto_describing these_attitudes is the disorganized,nd dilatory component shown in the factor_analyses,with its -high loadings on globetrotting, negativeattitudes, and disorganized study methods. Thisorientation was found to_be unrelated either todiscipline or to the evaluation variables, butpositive attitudes to studying were found to beassociated with good teaching and freedom in learning(p <;03)- This is consistent with the fadteranalysis result linking:departmental evaluation topositive attitudes in all subject areas and; of -

course; with the interview results reported in the

previous chapter._

Similar conclusions-are reached f011Ot4ihgmultiple discriminant analyses of the departmentalmean scores. Extreme groups of departments wereformed to see whethertypical_orientations could bepredicted by students' perceptions. Groups wereformed by selecting thetwo_highest and the two -

lOWett departmental mean scores in each of the sikdisciplines, so that each group consisted_of twelve

department3. This pjrocedure automatically controlledfor the 0.ffeets of different disciplines. One_setof departments was made up by choosing the highestand lowest meaning_orientation_departments, an-Other

by selecting the highest and lowest_ reproducingorientation departments, and a third consisted of thehighest and lowest disorganized and dilatory attitudet

*_ It was also impossible_to_detect any influence onthe relationship between orientations and contextsof the type of department defined by mean 'A' levelgrade score of its students.

188


departments Separate analyses were performed oneach.

The functions discriminating between departmentswhich had high and low mean scores on the disorgan-ised and dilatory dimension were not significant.Extreme departments in terms of meaning orientationwore predicted best by good teaching and freedom inlearning. Using these two variables alone, 71% ofthe departments could be placed in their correctgroups, the prediction being better for the lowmeaning orientation departments than the high onesThis seems consistent with the Gothenburg findingsconcerning the difficulty of_ inducing a deep approachand the relative ease with which its opposite can beencouraged. It seems that dr,partments without goodteaching and freedom in learning effectively act top- r --\ent the development of meaning orientation intheir students; departments which are positively_evaluuLed encourage meaning orientation by providingthe_ right conditions for it to grow but it is nota necessary consequence

The discriminant function for the reproducingorientation _groups was defined mainly by workload(;84), freedom in learning (-1.20), and vocationalrelevance (.77), when all the CPQ variables wereincluded _The prediction results for this groupwere slightly more accurate, again in accordancewith the expectation suggested by the Swedishresearch:

ACADEMIC PROGRESS IN DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTAL CONTEXTS

Relationships between approaches to studyingand academic performance (both self-rated and asdefined by first-year grades) in the differentsubject areas were examined in Chapter 4. The_useOf the course perceptions questionnaire provided anopportunity to analyse possible interactions betweenapproaches to studying and types of context (definedseparately from subject area) in relation to self-rated academic progress. Do students with con-trasting orientations to studying see themselves tobe performing equally well (or equally badly) indepartments of different kinds?

In order to examine the effect of differentorientations to studying on performance while con-trolling for discipline, groups of departments wereformed in terms of different extreme contexts. Thusthe two departments in each discipline with the -

highest mean scores on good teaching were comparedwith the two with the lowest mean scores on good

189

206


teachiny, Ahd 140 on. Correlations between self-_ratings of performance and the composite variablesrepresenting meaning orientatiOni reproducing orien-tatioht_and disorganiZed and dilatory approaches;were then computed. For the plirpose of theSeanalyses, another composite variable; accomplishedlearning, was created. This was intended to re-present more accurately the consistent__deep + stra-teuic_approach identified in the interviews. Itconsisted of meaning orientation + strategic approach+ comprehension learning + syllabus- freedom + positiveattitudes to studying (compare the loadings on thesevariables in the factor analyses).

The correlations presented in Table -9.3 cannotbe reyarded as more than suggestive of the possibleinterattienS between contexts and_orientations; butthey are of -much interest. Meaning orientation is

pperceived to be related to academic rogress_moststronyly_in conditions of freedom in learning -withtiyht,workload. Reproducing orientation is leastpenalied When the teaching is_poor and therelittle freedom in learning; While disorganized anddilatory approaches are least effective under thesame conditions and are always fairly_ stronglyrelated to poor performance. _AccompliShed learningis strongly favourable to progress in all conditions,but particularly so wheh the teaching is poor andthere is freedom in learning.

All these associations are consistent w4th theresults so far presented and with the interview dataIt requires no great effort of imagination to picturethe consistent di;ep-level; strategic students suchas those identified in the interviews (for example,psychology, student 5) perceiving defjciencies in theteaching:, and freedom of choice, as challenges toperform better; nor -to see the disorganized studenthoping that the helpfUlheta of his lecturers willenable_him to progress more effectively. It remainsdisturbing that the reproducing studentsi,respondingto a context of restricted choice over method andcontent of study combined with ineffective_teaching,feel that their strategy Will not be too heavilypenalized, while at the same time students orientatedtowards meaning feel themselves least likely to do_well when the workload is heavy and there is littlefreedom in learning.

CONCLUSIONS

The reSUltS we have described in this chapter;taken in conjunction with the interview findings,

190

Table 9.3 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN ORIENTATIONS TO STUDYING AND PERFORMACE UNDER DIFFERENT

EXTREME CONDITIONS, CONTROLLING FOR DISCIPLINE

Orientations to shdying

glorimpy...11.m.Wn,IMM.1.0

Meaning Reproducing Disorganized and Accomplishe.d

0it

Conditions (types of department) orientation orientation dilatory approach learning

ti

0

0

28 -25 -40 35 0

H.

25 -23 -35 29

40

23 -26 -28 21H.

030 -18 -42 36

n0Highest freedom in learning and

30 -28 -37 36good teachingrt

Fi

0Lowest freedom in learning and

026 -16 -47 34rt

good teaching

ws

Highest workload23 -24 -43 31 4

Lowest workload26 -21 -21 32

1Highest workload with lowest0

22 -20 -39 28freedom in learning

o

5Lowest workload with highest

032 26 -33 37 0freedom in learning

rt

m

Highegt freedom in learning

Lowest freedom in learning

Highest good teaching

Lowest good teaching

.N.Wwwmfd/Wd..

I..' Decimal points omitted


show quite clearly that students' perceptions ofteaching and assessment methods in academic depart!-_ments are sianificantly associated with, and probablycausally related_to, students' approaches to study-ing. Self-rated student performance is relatedboth to perceptions of courses and to orientationsto learning. To have identified these effects -andinteractions is not to imply that individual differ-ences are unimportant_ variables in the explanationof approaches and academic progress. BUt theabfindings do suggest that it might_bP. possible tomake improvements in the quality of strident learningin higher education by alterations to the contextsin which it occurs. _These implications are examinedtogether with conclusions drawn from the other partsof the investigation in the next chapter.

209192

Chapter Ten

LEARNING AND TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION

INTRODUCTION

This_finalchapter is an attempt to highlightwhat we think are the distinctive contributions tounderstanding learning_and teaching made by ourresearch programme. Our main aims were to explorethe contrasting ways in which students approachstudying and in what ways academic departments mayinfluence those approaches. What can now be saidabout these individual and contextual differences?What practical implications can be drawn from thisresearch for improving teaching and learning inhigher education ? - And finally, how successful wasthe attempt to make use of different methodologiesin investigating how student learn?

HOW STUDENTS LEARN: APPROACHES AND OUTCOMES

The insistent contrast between students' ways ofstudying revealed by this research is, of course,_

_

between_ deep and surface (or meaning and reproducing)approaches to learning. Several different studieswithin our research programme show how the distinct-ions suggested in the work of Marton and Biggs havebeen developed. Repeated factor analyses of success-ive versions of the approaches to studying_inventoryconfirmed the importance of the meaning and repro-ducing orientations in all the academic disciplineswe investigated Although it is also possible toidentify other orientations to studying, the evidencehere is less consistent. The final_analysessuggested that the third main dimension - theachieving or strategic orientation - would have tobe divided into positive and negative components(strategic orientation and non-academic orientation).The inventory has already been used with students_elsewhere_-_ the Open University and AustralianNational University - with similar but not identical

193

210

Learning and Teaching in Higher Education

factor stru;;tur.:: being reported.The questionnaire variant of Marton's research

method tor investigating outcomes and processes oflearning with academic articles also showed the deep-surface distinctionbetween approaches to learning.Lii site of difficulties in finding appropriatearticles and in coding the responses, the analysisa(;,!in showed the clear links between approaches andleve),s of understanding reported by Marton (Martonand SaIjo, 1976a); Furthermore, it indicated thatthere were differences within the deep approachbetween students who were seeking personal meaning,and those who relied more on evidence and detail inbuilding up understanding.

Qualitative analysis of the interview data(Chapter 8) confirmed the importance of the funda-_mental difference between deep and surface approaches.Although the distinction was seen to apply to manysubject areas, it had to some extent to be re-interpreted within contrasting academic contexts.In other words, the meaning of the concepts subtlyshifts in relation to different disciplines. Inscience departments a deep approach involves con-siderable emphasis on detail and procedures, and mayeven require a preliminary stage of rote learningdiffiCUlt to distinguish from a surface approach.In humanities and social sciences, we saw how personalreinterpretation, related especially to experienceof the world of people rather than things, was mostimportant in carrying out a deep approach. A hintOf a similar distinction was also found in the small-scale study of sixth-formers reported in chapter 4.Deep approaches were associated with high A-levelgrades in both arts and science, but successfulscientists also used attention to detail andmemorization;

Our research has confirmed the relationshipsbetween approaches and outcomes illustrated in thework of Marton and his colleagues. -- Approach andlevel of understanding are closely linked, notonly in experimental situations but also in therealistic setting of conventional assessments. Thelearning experiments and the questionnaire on outcomeand process (chapters 5 -and 6) demonstrated theconnection in a controlled conteXt, while theinventory and interviews revealed similar relation-ships between approaches and either self-ratedacademic progress or degree classifications.Students in the interview study, for example, who usedconsistently deep approaches, and those who used high1

194

211


strategic methods LO handle assessment tasks, weremore likely to obtain First or Upper Second classhonours degrees. The reproducing orientation wasrelated to poor self-rated performance and themeaning orientation to higher self-ratings in theinventory survey; similar, although rather weakerrelationships between these orientations and firstyear marks have been reported in the Australian study;The strongest relationships with poor academic per-formance in the Lancaster research have_been with _

the non-academic orientation. It is also interestingto see indications of subject area differences_ in_ thecorrelations. _ Reproducing orientation is associatedwith poor results especially in arts, while strategicorientation has its strongest positive relationshipwith progress in science subjects. These findingsundoUbtedlY confirm the usefulness of the inventoryscales and the deep_and surface concepts for des-_crieiny realistic differences in students' ways ofapproaching their work.

INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL ORIENTATIONS TO STUDYING

It may be most helpful to see the differencebetween deep and surface --roaches to academic tasksin terms of the student's iiitention. The deepapproach is internal - to the content of the articleor problem; and to the knowledge; experience and _

interests of the learner. The surface approach isexternal - towards the task and its requirements, andimplies a_process_of learning in which alien materialis to be impressed on the memory for a limited periodand with the specific intention of satisfying exter-nal demands; There is no expectation that the con-tent will become a continuing part of the learner'scognitive structure.

Using this distinction between external andinternal orientations to studying; we can see howdeep and surface_ approaches are a special case of amore general tendency which can be found in severalvery recent studies in addition to our_own. Forexample; Taylor; Gibbs and Morgan (1981) have dis-covered marked differences between students at theOpen University and a_conventional university in whatbenefits they expected to derive from higher education.The Open University students showed predominantlypersonal goals, but within these_the orientation couldStill be external (compensating for earlier academicfailure) or internal (broadening horizons; interests;and capabilities). At the conventional universitythe students showed mainly academic or vocational

212195


goals, but again these_could be subdivided into ex-trinsic (grades or qualifications)and intrinsic(knowledge and skill) categories.

The distinction between external and internalorientation is at the heart of our own meaning andreproducing orientations as shown_in the inventorysubscales making up the two main dimensions.Students relying on reproducing information allowStaff to define learning tasks and are interested incourses mainly for the qualifications they offer.In contrast students_looking for meaning are interes-ted in the work itself and interact critically withwhat they are learning. The distinction can also beseen clearly in a recent interview analysis (Thompson,1981) which contrasted two groups of students high orlow in scores on syllabus-boundness_(Parlett, 1970).The attitudes of these "sylbs" and " sylbs" aredramatically different. The sylbs accept thelectures and examinations without question; theyfocus on the course as formally defined. In contrastall the sylbs reject, even abhor, examinationsi andactively dislike lectures (see Entwistle; 1981). _

Other interview studies (Hodgson, 1981; Manook andKing; 1981)also bring out the way in_which studentssee teaching in terms of its external (assessmentorientation) or internal (personal interest andknowledge) characteristics.

This distinction between whether a studentfocuses in the intrinsic (internal) or extrinsic(external) functions of educational experiences seemsto be the broadest way of conceptualising differencesin learning. But by its very broadness_it_runs therisk of oversimplifying the complicated differencesin how students learn. We need to remember thatmost students will be both intrinsically and ex-trinsically orientated at different times; thatstudents' approaches_ are_ strongly influenced by thecharacteristics of the discipline studied and theteaching received. It is also important to recog-nize that students may have distinct preferences fordifferent (but equally effective) ways of tacklingacademic tasks._ It_is particularly important tobear these complicating issues in mind if we seek toapply the findings of this research to_our own_learning and teaching; as will be clear in a moment.

HOW STUDENTS LEARN: STYLES, STRATEGIES AND INDIVIDUALDIFFERENCES

The research reported in this book has shownthat Pask's distinctions between styles and

196

213


strategics ofloarning (see chapter 2) are anadditional dimension which needt to be taken intoaccount when we try_ to_ describe how students learn:Some of the analyses of the approach08 to Studyinginventory made it tib-,It that Separate holist andserialist tattors could be identified The question-naire study of students' approaches to reading,described in thapter6,revealed that the deepapproach -was better defined in terms of two dimensionsOne factor represented an OMPhasis on personal mean-ing, While the other showed higher_loadings onprevious knowledge and the use of detail. The resultof the experiments inchapt-er 5 also seemed to indi-cate stylistic differences in studying: We saw howpersonal reinterpretation was again separate fromconcentrating on evidence> although it also seemed tobe linked to ci rather casual approach reminiscent ofglobetrotting - the overreadiness to jump to con-ClOsions on uity evidence. Where gIbbettottingis linked with a deep approach, it is clear that weare deSeribLn.1 no more_than a deep passive approachwhich will shade into a surface approach. In themain approaches to studying survey a surface approachwas usually_associated with both learning pathologies

improvidence and globetrotting. Thus stylisticdifferent-0S are apparent not only in the way differ-ent students reach understanding; but also in theways they fail to db

It also seems likely that students withdifferent styles of learning are attracted todifferent subject areas. We saw in chapter 8 howcontrasting styles oflearning are pert of the common-sense understanding of studentS. Students! owndeSttiptionsof differences in styles and strategiesof learning in arts and science departMents werestrongly teMiniscent_of Pask's characterizations ofcomprehension and operation learning and Of IlUdSbn's(1968) descriptions of the stereotypes of arts andscience teachers__held by pupils.

How should we explain these contrasting ways ofseeking Understanding -_one relying more on personalMeaning and interpretationi and the other drawingmore on previous,knowledge, concentration on detailiand logical argument?_ Analyses of_the relationshipsbetween learning styles and personality traitssuggested that it does make sense to regard students'patterns of studying as being relatively stable andconsistent. Although there were relationshipsbetween approaches to_learning and both convergentand divergent thinkingi the correlatiOnS Were small.Much closer associations were found between the

197

214


indicators -of styles of learning and personalitytraits. The evidence must_still be treated astentative, but it may be helpful to view styles asbeing more a characteristic of the individual; andapproaches as bbihq more obviously affected by_the_

context of studying. As approaches and styles arethemselves quite closely related; this separationshould be seen as no more than a convenient simpli-

fication: If we stick closely to the ehliritalfindings, we shoUld be forced to_accept that style§and approaches are both relatively stable over timeand consistent over subject areas; but that both

are also importantly variable between tasks_orteachers. The apparent contradiction in this des-cription may be difficult to conceptualize; but_itdoes reflect the complexity of the inter -relation-_

Ships find among the constructs used in researchon student learning.

Another attempt at simplifying the patterns ofresults reported in the previous chapters will befound in Figure 10.1. ThiS framork indicates theOVerlappinl relationships between study orientations;approaches to Lu-chrihg.; styles _of learning; person-ality; and_probable outcomes of learning.

ThiS frailieWork may be helpful in summarizing__some of our main empirical findings; but it is alsoincomplete and potentially misleading. It Over-emphasizes the relatively stable individual differ-ences identified and presents a static Model ofstudent behaviour. Yet our research containsimportant additional elements. As we have_alreadyargued; consistent differences in styles andapproaches to studying represent only part of thewhole picture of student learning. It is clear thatthe content and context of learning need to be taken

into account: students often adopt flexiblestrategies to cope with different academic demands;Our theory would also need to incorporate thedevelopmental changes which students experience _

through learning more effective approaches to study-

ing.

HOW STUDENTS LEARN: THE EFFECTS L LEARNING CONTEXT

A very important part of the studies of studentlearning carried out in Gothenburg was the demon-stration of connections between students' approachesand the context of learning. Marton has stressedtht the, approach to learning should not be seen asa characteristic of the student, but as a responseto a s!.tuation. The 'natural' approach is a deep

198 215

Learning and Teaching in Higher EdUCatien

one (Marton; 1976); Although we should also want tcargue that it makes sense to speak of individualconsistency in approaches; the results presented inthe previous chapters Show clearly the strong influ-ebbe of the situation in which learning takes place.There are_important interactions between the contextand individual differences. For example; somescudents a:-e better able than others to !Manage'adverse conditien8;

The most crucial variable; as Frans801118original experiment showed (FranaSen, 1977) is thestudent's peceptlen of what he is required to doThe_efrects of contrasting perceptions can be seenat more_than one level. For example, at the levelOf the lbarning_task itself; perceived interest andrelevance undoub:.edly increase intrinsic motivationand make a deep approach more likely to occur;Taskswhich are perceived as_requirihg only repro-duction; or on which the StUdent is mainly extrinsi-cally motivated, increase the probability of asurface approach. These relatiOnShipa, Originallyshown in Marten's work, were most apparent_in theinterview study described_in_chapter 8 It wasalso found that a student'S interest in the subjectmatter of the task was a crucial component of a deepapproach; especially in arts and social sciencesubjects; while prerequisite knowledge was most oftenmentioned in relation to science tasks

The second level at Whi-ch the effects of learn-ing context operate is that of the individuallecturer. The attitudes and enthusiasm of alecturer; his Cone-ern fer helping students to,unden-Stand, and particularly his ability to Under-Stand thediff:culties experienced by students in dealing witha new topic, are all likely to affect his students'approaches and attitudes to_studying It isperhaps important to note that our research dealsonly with students' perceptions of a lecturer'squalities, and the questionnaire covered only_certainaspects Of teaching. Further research is necessaryto explore more fully the_important infltienteS ofindividual lecturerS on their students' approachesto learning. It would also be necessary to explorewhethnr effective - learning depends oh a corres-pondence between teaching style and preferred learn-ing style._

The_final level at WhiCh perdeptions affectstudent-8' learning relates to departments; Of thediffering ways in which departments are -Organized,the most crucial inflUenteS on approaches to leaim-ing concern the forms of assessment; It is

216 199

0

.r1

0

rj

tr)

(P.P.P.14 ql

ON-saullamos) !malA

-;;.0 4T0 Alv 01 PI Nu pq qluawte

Jo suaudelk3 pu

uqp ilalP100Y

*(szle

PI 0.11.1 AI.T1)

Topa pa wpm paPei

-n21?

OuIpuelglapua !mm

sapt13 010 ipauleal

MI 1M h2I3110 Pu6

Sup{;psof Imas.aq

gpurnp luaussasse

aleme 1{IsnoIxue

uv punoq-gnquip(s

iqpnpaldIalu

pal.luT[ pur snoIloep

uelap uopuallv

mappla 2ulloalgau

lnq isla3Alan-aAlva5

41111 pue uope;

-P4048.4P1 IPP.s1;(1

U0 2Uppll !alq;

-eu-12eul

sPpspa4or1rtio

puolssagio map

-MUT ollolnaN

. . I

........ M4111 Illm

slsaaalul pauRgoo

Ieuolleom pus sawIlmos)

*mope Soils 2upaea.i

Batt 2222AU0) uoIleaado

alum',

Polsug

-aidnD

(panuIlun)

uopeluapo

an3ins

;ragged 4a

iTaleupeul slaad

-au 41INOQI

sate !iCiivoI

-I4P D.P.P.04a.

X1TuPs

-1)d mum pup. palrlhlui anlesiaA /1117 dam

Po1 UNI?1,10

f I

211.1PN

a_003n0 Ige(pld SaSSR00,1d i(;11ruoglad prozddy U011e2U;110

4111s

na.monlii ppliv31 ,1,113a1,1S SdIS IZI11S )11101121.)11 V 1'01

C(,3;

Figure 10.1 A FRAMEWO 1R121C DESCRIPTIONS OF STUDENT LEARNING

Study

Orienta.ion

Stereotypic

Approach Style PersonalityProcesses

continued)

Probable Outcome

Surface

passive

Improvi- Social ektro7

deace com- vert with few

bisted with academic

globe- interests or

trotting vocational

aspirations

Little attention

to detail; over-

teadin8S to

generaUzei.super-

ficiai ttUttent_

and casual inter-

pretation

Mentioning often irre

levant_factswithina

disordered; haphazard.

overview (LOW oade)

Pc)

0

Strategic

Orientation

Deep or

surface

as

necessary

Strategic Stability id

co4dence _

cabbed With

competitive

aggressive-

ness

Detail_orleaning

as perceived. to

be reCiliir-ed by

the teacher

21.8

liigh grades; with ot

With-Out understanding

searning and Teaching in Higher Education

anforLunate that the mail apparent effects arenegative - students are pushed towards surfaceapproaches by forms of assessment which seem toLnvite, and reward, reproductive answers.

These relationships were shown to be functionalones in the qualitative data from the student inter-views. The correlational analyses of the courseporcepLions questionnaire and approaches to studyinginventory, however, perhaps showed most convincinglythe effects of departments and lecturers on studentlearning. It was clear that different departmentsLeaching the same disciplines provided differentlearning contexts and that these contexts wereClosely associated with the typical approaches tolearning adopted by the students. Perceived goodteaching; and choice over methods and content ofstudying, were related to an orientation_towardsmeaning and to positive attitudes to studying in adep.irtment's students: A lack of choice and a per-ceived'heavy workload was associated with a repro-ducing orientation.

Besides noting the_effects of departments ontheir students, it is also important to rememberthe characteristics which were not affected. Thedifferences in departments were not related to_eitherorganized study methods or achievement motivation.These scales in the inventory_are thus probablydescribing more stable individual differences or,at_least;_they_represent aspects of studying notaffected by differences in current departmentalpractice.

Taking these findings together; combining theimpressions of causality from the interviews withthe evidence of relationships from the questionnaires,we can begin to piece together a chain_of causalitywhich necessarily complicates the model of studentlearning presented in the previous section.

Po8itiVe attitudes to studying; a deep approach;intrinsic motivation, and academic progress are allrelated to good teaching, freedom in learningi andan avoidance of overloading. If students perceivethe teaching they encounter to be effective, they_aremore likely to be ititerested_in the subject matterto which it relates, and to be able to see itsrelevance to_their everyday lives. They are, more-over, less likely to question the worth of theexperience of higher education. Combined withassessment methods perceived to be appropriate, thesecontextual characteristics increase the probabilitythat_students will take deep approaches. The pro-bability is further increased; especially in science

202 219


subjects, if enough _information and backgroundknowledge associated with the academic task isavailable. But perceptions of inappropriate or_excessive assessment, together with a too rigidlystructured curriculum, encourage extrinsic motivation,engender poor attitudes, and thereby make surfaceapproaches more likely. The quality of the outceMeof learning is therefore likely to be lower asOf course;_ail these effects are mediated through_the individual differences between students: eachstudent will be affected in a different way. Itshould also be stressed that we are not simplyarguing that freedom in learning is a guarantee ofdeep approaches. Elements of choice and a clearoverall structure are both essential to this modelof the effects of course contexts on student learn-ing.

We must add yet another compiication to the_model. It is clear from the previous chapters thatstudents' approaches and the effects of teaching haveto be understood in relation to the subject area inwhich they take_place. Disciplines differ in the_"atmospheres" of learning they provide.science departments are seen to have more

Generally;1 _

teaching, clearer goals, more vocational relevance,better social climatesi and less freedom in learningthan arts and social science departments.differences are paralleled by typical styles oflearning: operation learning is more common inscience departments, comprehension learning in arts.We saw earlier how deep and surface approaches haveto_be redefined within contrasting subject areas=-Added to that, it seems that styles of learning aredifferentially effective, depending on the subjectarea; Comprehension learning is mosl- stronglyrelated to self-rated academic progress in artssubjects, whileoperation learning is_more effectivein science. Versatility - the combination ofoperation learning with comprehension learning -_15especially favourable to progress in science depart-ments. Operation learning is apparently lessnecessary in achieving high_marks in the arts andsocial sciences. These differences in contexts andstyles of learning suggest rather different impli-cations for encouraging deep approaches in differentsubject areas.

TOWARDS EFFECTIVE LEARNING

It should be clear by now that our currentknowledge of student learning_permits us to offer thecomponent parts of a theory of the process of

2 0203


learning and Leaching in highor education althoughmuch_work still needs to be done to reach a fullydeveloped theory. In chapter 2 we looked at researchby William Perry showing that students report -a pro-cess of intellectual and ethical development duringtheir time in higher education._ The main directionof this change is away from dualistic, right/wrongviews of knowledge towards contextual relativisticreasoning the recognition of the tenativei_ permeable;nature of academic knowledge and of the need to liveWith this uncertainty. The research described inthe earlier chapters of this bbok did not involve alongitudinal study of individual students over aperiod of several years, an,. so no direct evidence ofdevelopment can be presented here. However, therecertainly are logical continuities between severalof the concepts discussed in chapter 2, includingPerry's; which our own investigations have demon-strated empirically.

The interviews of students in zhapter 8 showedparticularly well the links between versatility,strategic approaches, and successful learning out-comes: Certain students seem able to choose to takeeither deep or surface approaches to academic tasksselecting the approach most appropriate to thedemands of assessment and teaching. They adapt to,but are not dominated by, the departmental context.In chapter 9 we also saw how students who were orien-tated towards both meaning and achievement wereapparently less affected by adverse teaching andassessment conditions. Somestudents in the inter-view study were aware of a process of development intheir_approaches to learning in ways reminiscent ofPerry's stages or Saljei's notion of thematization inlearning. Remember, for example, the psychologystudent who spoke of realising that:

204

"there was a structure in the things they -wereteaching us and it wasn't just a load of facts -that's only a recent, recent realizationi per -haps only this term. I started to realize itWhen I realized that the English I'm doing formy free ninth, er, is very closely connected topsychology ... the novelist seems to be veryel-case to the psychologist:only he writes it ina creative - no, not creative - a more artisticform. And-when I realized that those were soclose I suddenly realized how interrelated allthe topics in psychology were. Arid that'sWhen I also read -some articles on creativity;that's when I suddenly realized that putting

221


your own poLLurn on it would probably make abetter essay, and a more_enjoyable essay. I'vebecome more interested in the subject, I think;I've Legun to understand more of the subject,and perhaps; learned; learned things that; canapply in my everyday life more successfully.I mean things like my learning. I've learned,perhaps; perhaps a better way of learning."

Perry's idea of the relativistic reasoner, Heath'sreasonable adventurer, Pask's versatile learnerthese are all ideal types of successful student. Itwould be a mistake to extend these concepts too farand to suppose that there is one ideal personalityprofile or set of values and_experiences_whichcharacterizes the effective learner in highereducation. Just as labels denoting learning dis-abilities in children or students (poorly motivated,wrong family background, badly organized, and so on)can all too easily become parts of self-fulfillingprophecies, so models of ideal students may be un-helpful ways of encouraging effective learr-Ong. Ourresearch has shown:, in contrast, that a bewilderingvariety of approaches to learning exists in highereducation; different combinations suit differentstudents and can be equally successful or unsuccess-fUl depending on the characteristics both of theindividual and of the learning_context._ It isnevertheless true that the ability attributed byHeath to the reasonable adventureri_to 'alternatebetween the curious and the critical', or in our workthe alternation between a general view and the detail-ed examination of the evidence; is one which highereducation should aim to foster. The question whichthen arises is how that ability is to be developed,taking into account the individual; interdisciplinary,and contextual differences, and the numerous roadsto understanding; which our research has revealed;

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE AND POLICY

The research described in this book does notprovide a blueprint for designing effective learningin higher education. It does, however, offer amuch-needed theoretical and empirical rationale forpractical efforts to improve learning and teaching.We have seen that the process of student learning inrelation to individual student differences and to itscontext is much more complicated than lecturers andstudents are often prepared to admit. The findingsof the research need to be reinterpreted by

205


leCtUretS iii i-el kitioh to the particular difficultiesof their students and their subject area. SUitableteaching strategies must take Account of contextualand individual differences. We hope that one ofthe most important messages to come from thisresearch is that commonsense theories of "good" and"weak" students, conceptions of single "ideal"methods of studying, and Leaching technologies pur-porting to be universally applicable in differentsubject areas, are all of dubious practical value tolecturers and students. But what can now be saidabout the steps which might be taken to improvelearning in higher education?

If universities and polytechnics seek to enr-courage greater versatility in their students, thenthe evidence of this research is that a two-prongedattack is needed. On the one hand interventionfocused on students themselves is required on theother, effOrtS to Change teaching and assessment toprovide fertile conditions for the growth ofapproaches aimed at understanding are necessary.

IMPROVING STUDYING

We have seen that students in higher educationuse a variety of approaches to learning. Not onlydo the same students vary their approaches in res-ponse to different perceived requirements, butdifferent students differ in their individual pre-ferences. The finding that a deep approach can becarried out with contrasting emphases on comprehension and operation learning suggests that we shouldnot try to change a student's learning style, exceptas a last resort when it is creating_ serious diffi-culties for the student. On the other hand it isvaluable to help students to become more aware oftheir characteristc style and approach, to showhow they may most effectively capitalize on theirintellectual strengths -and at thesame time trans-cend the limitations of a particular style. Theimprovident serialist needs help to practise theSkills of developing ideas and analogies; the globe-trotting holist ought to be given opportunities topractise the handling -of details to support hisideas. Students could also benefit from oppor-tunities to become more confident in exploringpersonal strategies which effectively cope withdifferent academic tasks and assessment requirements.Some will probably need help with specific studyskills (reading for understanding, constructinganalytic essays, writing effective laboratory reports,

206

223


and so on). Hut all students will gain from beingencouraged to raise their_ awareness and to thinkabout ways of developing flexible learning strategies- the higher order skill of orchestrating the com-ponent techniques.

Many students will need a good deal of help inrecognizing the very_different strategies requiredto respond appropriately to the wide variety of tasksSet by lecturers. Our first recommendation_is,thatdirect_teaehing_of_study strategies, combined withindividual remedial help for students experiencingspecial learning difficulties; ought_ to be providedin our_universitios and polytechnics'. The incidenceof surface approaches in students shows clearly thatmany have not mastered_effective.study processes.Students take time to develop if they develop atall a repertoire of strategies enabling them todeal effectively with academic demands. Althoughmany schemes have been devised to improvestudy_skills,few have taken seriously the wide range of strategieswhich_can be shown to be effective. The increaseduse of study skills programmes concentrating. solelyon techniquesi rather than on the development ofabilities to structure material with the aim ofunderstanding, would be worse than useless;

Inappropriate organizing techniques, for example,are more of a hindrance than a help in studying An"ideal" approach shown to be useful for one studentmay suit others not at all.

Practical ways of running study skills programmeswhich aim at increasing awareness have already beendeveloped, but they differ in their emphases. Main(1980) and Wankowski (Raaheim and Wankowski, 1981)advocate individual counselling, Gibbs (1981) special-izes in discussion methodsi_while Brew,(1981)_ con-centrates on helping student's to organize and structureboth studying and learning. We accept the value ofeach cif these approaches_for particular purposes, butwould resist any suggestion that any df theseapproaches was sufficient_in itself. Gibbs, forexample:, avoids any direct teaching of study skills,partly because the psychological justifications of the'rules' for better studying are of_dubious validity;and_partly because students are effective in suchdifferent ways that no general rules could be. des-cribed. In our view it would be beneficial to pro-vide students with the concepts and theories emergingfrom the current research_on_student learning; Sucha study skills course would draw attention to theimportance of organization and structure (in the waysdescribed by Angela Brew, 1981') , to the existence of

224 207


COntra8iiiig uiy[el; ihd approaches; to the need_to_adopt versatile acid appropriate strategies, and tothe development of a personally satisfying style ofStlidyihg which i8 idiosyncratic- but effective. We1-ecognize the value of Gibbs' (1981) technique ofhelping students to discover from each other thevariety of approaches being used in a situation_which_is not threatening to self:confidence. Andfinally it is clear that some difficulties in_study-ing experienced by students have deep emotional _

roots; related -often to home circumstances, whichcan only be helped by s student counsellor withspecialized psychiatric skills, such as Wankowski(Raandiiii and Wankowski; 1981) . This individual_counselling may also be requited by Other studentswho have 'blocks' created by particular academicta§ks, or who cannot make the connections from ageneral course or workshop to their own problems.AleX Main (1980) describes how such students may behelped by a counselling service=

IMPROVING TEACHING AND ASSESSMENT

The usefulness of the sort of interyentiondes-cribed above is liMited. Study skills programmesare usually the preserve of specialists outside theeveryday context of student learning the teachingand assessment processes of academic departments; _-

What the research reported in this book has repeatedlydemonstrated is the pervasive effect of this_contextof learning on students' approaches to studying and

leVelS of understanding; It would probably be_moreeffective to change the StUdentS' environment, whichis the source of many problems;_than to_concentrate__on helping §tUdentS to find ways of coping -with thoseproblems (see Wankowski, 1973). It is sadly truethat disturbing conclusions reached by researchersand other commentators on higher education duringthe last hundred years or so (see, e.g.Whitehead,1932) are confirmed in our findings The evidenceis overwhelming that the quality_of student learningis adversely affected by inappropriate assessmentmethods; poor teaching, and the lack of freedomprovided by some_course$, Yetthe_detrimental__effeetS may not be visible in the outcomes_of con-ventional assessments, as 'success' is defined bythe criteria adopted by the staff. Neverthelessthe picture is not entirely sombre= It is equallyclear that some_departments, after allowing forsubject area differonoes; are more effective thanothers at facilitating deep approaches. We have

208

225


seen more than once how intrinsic motivation,interest anti relevance enhance the probability of adeep approach; while threatening assessment con-ditions make surface approaches more likely.Teachers can help to encourage intrinsic motivationand point out rolevant issues; they can equally wellencoura(je negative attitudes by a lack of concern forthe students' learning difficulties or by a lack ofcommitment to their subject. Of course, deepapproaches cannot simply be created by effectiveteaching and assessment; we can, however, ensurethat the conditions for understanding are as favour-able as possible.

There can be no simple advice given to lecturers,no magic traininy programme, which derives_from ourresearch. The type of 'earning demanded bydifferent disciplines is clearly different, and sono general recipe for better teaching and_assessmentcan be given. In arts, students should be encouragedto search for personal meaning, which seems to dependen empathy and openness from staff, informal teaching(discussion) methods, freedom for st-idents to exploretheir interests, and yet, because of that freedom;the setting of clear goals and standards. In scienceand social science, good teaching seems to dependmore on pitching information at the right_level andbeing alert to student difficulties. A deepapproach in science depends more on operation learn-ing, on relating evidence and conclusion, and on theappropriate use of a certain amount of initial rotelearning to master the terminology. But_this_versatility in_learning will emerge readily onlywhere the workload is reasonable, and where freedomin learning is allowed. The forms of assessment, thetypes of questions; Will also need to be consistentwith lecturers' attempts to develop _critical thinking.If factual reproduction of memorized answers isimplicitly encouraged and actively rewarded (throughthe marks given), students will shift accordingly_towards surface approaches. Remember the psychologystudent in the interview study in chapter 8 who said:

hate -to say it, but what you've got to do ishave a list of the "facts"; you write down ten__important points and memorize those, then you'lldo all right in the test if you can give abit of factual information so_and so did_that;and concluded that for two sides of writing,then you'll get a good mark".

Staff are often unaware of the effects that their

226 209


assessment: demands have on learning.example comes from Gibbs (1981):

Another

The scale of this problem quickly becameapparent when, in an exercise on how studentsactually spent their time before and after theeourse started; it emerged that the students hadactually been reading more psychology before thecourse started: But the cause was not faraway; _ Three-quarters of all their time out-side class contact hours was spent writing uplaboratory reports! This turned out to bebecause laboratory reports were_ marked severelyand the students were worried about passing thefirst year Their lack of reading was a directconsequence of a fear of failure and the per-ceived demands of the assessment system ...Apparent poor study skill was caused by teachers."

One of the dilemmas in this area seems to bethat attempts to make assessments more reliable; byusing short-answer or multiple-choice questions, orby introducing detailed marking schemes are alsoperceived as requiring mainly factual answers. Itis certainly clear at school level that markingschemes are more likely to reward the_accretion_ofcorrect pieces of information than evidence of inte-gration_and_personal understanding. Evidence ofpersonal understanding depends on the marker's judge-ment; it is therefore impressionistic and liable tobe unreliable. But it now seems -that mechanicalmarking schemes may affect not only the validity ofmeasurement; by concentrating toe much on easilymeasured aspects of the students' work; but also thestudent's approach to learning. It is, however,possible to develop systematic marking schemes whichgive appropriate credit to personal understanding,based on repeated overall impression marks onvarious criteria_or the use of appropriate_classi-fication systems for evaluating qualitativelydifferent outcomes of learning. (Biggs, 1982).There is, however, much work still to be done on thisproblem.

_The_fact that lecturers in higher educationusually have a great deal of cheice over how they aregoing to teach and assess means that, all too often,approaches to teaching reflect a narrow view of the'best' pedagogical method. Frequently lecturerswilthold dogmatically to the view that one form ofteaching is necessarily superior at one extreme;it may be felt that computer managed instruction or

210

227


'PersonaLizod I;yL.,Lems o! Instruction' (Keller Plan)are the answer to learning problems; at the_other.,tutor.71ess_discussion groups may be advocated as theonly "true" way of learning. The argument from ourresearch is that more rather than less; variety OftQaching methods is likely to be beneficial.StudentS are too rarely offered alternative_ways oflearning:. choice over the methods of learning avail-able (independent work, essays, lectures, tutorials,etc.) would seem to be not only highly valued_bystudents; but a logical implication of our model oflearning which stresses the wide variations amongstyles_and approaches they prefer.

How are we to encourage staff in higher educationinstitutions to respond to the challenge presented bythese findings? In part, as we shall see in amoment, the answers must come from policy-makers, whoneed to offer incentives and support for improvingteaching. _Staff development programmes in Britainhave had onLy very limited success in the_past; We_would argue that one of the reasons for their lack Ofimpact is an excessive emphasis on a model ofteaching and_learning_which focuses on lecturers'problems - how to address an audience effeCtiVely,how to prepare resource materials, how to run aseminar skilfully. While these things are important,they have tended to detract from the crucial linksbetween how tutors teach and assess, and howeffectively their students learn. Staff trainingand development programmes need to discuss students'problems,_as well as those _of the_teachers 7. todiscuss how_the students' difficulties may be createdby the Staff in some instances. From the evidenceof our research, many lecturers -show a lack ofsensitivity to students' study difficulties, whilethey are not sufficiently aware of students'_approaches to learning_or of the effects theirmethods of assessment have on how their studentslearn.

Future_staff development programmes may thushave to shift away from the concern with teaching_techniques towards helping lecturers to understandthe effects of their teaching on students' attitudesand approaches. Good teaching, like effectivelearning; can_be realized in many different ways;efficient techniques, either of studying or teachingare only useful if they can be incorporated withinan active_and concerned approach, related to theindividual's preferences but not dominated by them.

211

22R


In the fast- lew pages we hive looked in turn atsome of the impl.cations of our research for helpingstaff and helping students in higher education. Butthis separation between students; on the one handand Leaching and assessment, on the other, isslighuly artificial. In the real world improvementsin teaching and learning are two sides of the samecoin. Perhaps a practical attempt to improvestudent learning in higher education ought to con-sider both teachers and students 'zit the same time.This_suggests that it would be worthwhile to try todevelop students' learning skills by encouragingstaff to involve themselv2s in the process of im-proving heir students' approaches to studying.While doing this, lecturers might also be expectedto improve their teaching through a clearer insightinto its effects on students.

The kind of staff development and study skillSprograme this approach would resemble in practiceis demonstrated in a continuing project at theUniversity of Melbourne (Frederick, Hancock, James,Bowden and Macmillan, 1981). The main aim of thisproject has been to develop the abilities andconfidence of teaching staff in the faculties of theUniversity so that they can take_on_what_may be anunfamiliar role - helping individUal students andgroups of students to improve their learning skills.Staffed by a learning skills counsellor and twomembers of the UniVersity's Centre for the Study ofHigher EdUCation; the project began_by making contactwith faculty staff and explaining what it could offer.Its potential value_was emphasized by the results ofa previous survey of student learning- skills in theuniversity. In spite of a highly selectiveadmissions policy and a low withdrawal rate, both_students and staff had given evidence of widespreadunderachievement due to inadequate learning skillS.

In several faculties joint activities involvingteaching staff, the project team, and students havesince become part of the teaching programme. Theproject's work has concentrated on staff_ developmentrather than on working directly with students an

approach which is more efficient and from the evi-dence of our research, likely to be more effective.Activities have included shared tutorials, segmentsin lectures (outlining, for example; different note-taking strategies), staff workshops on studying andlearning; learning skills topics in staff developmentcourses and course team meetings, and providing re-sources to help staff understand better the learningtkillt difficulties of their students.

212 229

Learning ana Teaching in Higher Education

What dislinguishes this attempt to intervenein learning and teaching is_not: so much the natureof its.activities as its deliberate orientation to-wards integrating staff development and studentlearning. As this_book_went to press work was aboutto begin on a formal evaluation of the project,which will make use of several of the measures de8-cribud in previous chapters to assess the effects ofthe interventions on the quality of students' learn-ing. The results of this work will be awaited withinterest by all who are concerned with teaching andlearning development in higher education.

IMPROVING APPROACHES TO LEARNING AT SCHOOL

Ft is not only ln universities and polytechnicsthat teachers need to take account of_the researchpresented in_this book._ Teachers and examiners insecondary s,711o0Is should be reminded of the importanceor setting assessments which test understanding anddemand independent thought, and do not seem toreward simple reproduction. Teachers should con-sideL ways in_ which they can make explicit tke typeof learning that is expected and should adoptteaching_methods which_promote active thought withina_clear structure. It is also of crucial importancethat basic concepts and skills are thoroughly taught tcensure that deep approaches can be undertaken bypupils:

Orientations towards personal meaning or towardsreproducing are brought to the experience ofhigher education by all students. Study methodsand learning pathologies_in university students arefully explained neither by stable individual prefer-ences nor by the context of learning_in highereducation. It is clear that attitudes and orien-tations towards studying are powerfully shaped byexperiences in school; in particular those associatedwith_external examinations. The threat of formalexaminations, and the revision associated with them;may push pupils towards memorizing: worse, it mayleave them with the idea that learning is_nothingmore than_reproducing other people's facts and ideas

Students often refer explicitly to the problemscreated by inappropriate approaches to learningdeveloped_ at school. For example, Mathias (1981)reports that many students felt that:

"their school experience had somehow distortedtheir view bf learning ... Some istudents1 evengave fairly graphic accounts of how the '0' and

213


'A' level system had inculcated an instrumentalview of learning. For instance .,. "I used towork for myself lots in the early days of _ _

SOCOndary school_and it took a while to get backinto this habit because (during '01and'ALlevels)I was virtually being told what to dd. And ittook me a While to get out of that and get backinto_doing what I found interesting or if Ididn't find it interesting, to make it interest-ing" (Pages 6 7)

It is probable that a link between teachingmethods in school and approach to learning could bedeffionstratcd, and_that again the twin attack ofmodifying approaches to teaching and examining, and,developing in pupils a greater_ awareness Of learningStrategies; could also beneficially affect the qualityof learning in schools. Indeed; it may be at schoollevel that the major initiative_should_be taken; toprevent inappropriate learning strategies becominghabitual before pupils move on to higher educationor employment.

POLICY ISSUES

How might the research_ findings presented herebe translated into policy terms, to be used in thedifficult planning issues facing post-compulsoryeducation in the remaining_years_of the century?Educatidnal planners and poltcy_makers have shown awary attitude towards research into teaching andlearning in higher education in the past,___It seemslikely that they may find themselves obliged_tochange; The_results of this research certainly donot give specific procedural_guidelines for policy,but they do deserve to be taken seriously byeducational administrators and planners.

First, it is desirable that models -oftional and systems planning should build into theiranalyses qualitative measures of student learningp _ _

I is time to abandon simplistic notions of universityoutput couched solely in terms of quantitative criteria- numbers of graduates produced - and to accept thatthe effectiveness of a_department__or an edUCationalinstitution also has to take account of the qualityof_understanding_sought by its Students. Second,efforts need to be made to improve -the learning con -texts -of departments and institutions._ The evidencethat student learningcan_be_improved by systematic re-appraisal of teaching and courses can no longer beignored. Inappropriate assessment methods,

214

231

Learning and Teaching in Higher Lducation

unimaginative tcdchinq; over-rigid courses, anexcessive aMbUnt of curricular material theseweaknesses seem to act against a high quality oflearning; Yet all are capable of being changed.An area deserving immediate attention is the assess -ment systems of our university departmehtt. Thereis a need to develop assessment methods which __genuinelytest_students'abilities to think criticallyand to understand the connections between activitiesin the real world and_the material they learn inhigher education. The capacity to reprOdUceinfor-motion alone is of limited value in graduate jobs,either to employers or employees: Improved assess-ment methods might decrease the chances of the pro-cess and value of university_education being ignored_in tha outside world (see Dore; 1977; Williams, 1378).

Another policy issue that should be faced isstudent choice of courses. There is a growing poli-tical pressure on_institutions to encourage studentsto take courses of immediate benefit to the technicaland commercial future of the country. Thisencouragement might well take the form of sub -8tantially reducing the number of places available inthe arts humanities, and social sciences. Suchpressure is likely to_beresisted, particularly by_theuniversities, partly because they value a continuedbalance between diseipiinet, but more pragmaticallybecause such changes imply redundancy for lecturersin the 'irrelevant' areas of study.

Our research, however, may suggest a reason forlooking more_closely at this issue in telatioh tostudents' academic interests. Many__employersi it-SeeMs, are not looking to universities to supplyspecific technical skills: these are taught moreeffectively aftot graduation_within the company;EMployers_are expecting degree courses to developcertain general qualities of mind, foremost of whichseems to be the ability to think critically; objective-ly,- flexibly; and_quickly; and to apply that thinkingto a wide range of problem situations. But for this'deep' approach_to occur, our research inditateS thatstudents must have an intrinsic interest in theircontent area That terminology is perhaps too_cautious. Students need_to engage with the Subject,to develop an intellectual passion to understand. IfStUdents_are studying mainly to obtain a qualificatibi-however relevant to society's anticipated needs - our

evidence is that there is a_greater likelihood that theknowledge will be obtained passively, in a way Whibhwould not engage those active critical ffaculties'.It is likely then that relevancei without commitment,

2 2 215


will provide employers with trained personnel withoutthe intellectual flair which higher education isexpected to awaken. Of course there is little knownabout the extent to which intellectual skillsdeveloped within an academic discipline are trans-ferable to situations encountered in industry andcommerce. The experience of_say, the CivilSerVice suggests that such skills are transferred,bUt the evidence is largely_ anecdotal. The argumentthat it would be better to develop those skills in__relevant disciplines (such as economics or law) failsto distinguish two forms of_relevance to the anti-cipated needs u: society and to the individual. Forintense involvement in studyingj personal relevanceis crucial, and policy makers who ignore this factorcould damage the central core of higher education.

This argument for student choicei should not__howeveri be taken as a plea for the status quo. ourevidence has pointed clearly to the fact that thetypes of assessment and teaching predominating_in somedepartments are unlikely to encourage the intellectualSkills most prized by lecturers. But if systematicreappraisal of teaching and assessment pr4ctices isto occur, such activities must be rewarded. Atpresent, in universities time spent in improvingteaching may even be indirectly penalized. Researchoutput is the main criterion for promotion; theinvestment of a similar proportion of one's time inimproving teaching_receives no rewardi and it is noteasy to do both things properly at once; The ideathat teaching might be evaluated is treated with out-rage or dismay by many academicsi although they acceptwithout question the judgement of others on the qualityof their research. Yet if quality of research may bejudged, then the quality of a_teacher's teaching_(andhis students' learning) should also be open to similarevaluation.

Our research can be taken to imply that resourcesdiverted into changing some established coursestructures, and to staff development programmesi wouldrepresent money well invested. The end to expansionin higher education_means_that measures to maintain theteaching vitality of staff are more than ever needed;the spectre of an ageing academic population shotthrough with cynicism about promotion prospects anddaily more uncertain of its future is depressing inits implications for the standards of teaching inhigher education. But at the same time decliningemployment prospects mean that attempts to institu-tionalize staff development_ are likely to be treatedwith growing suspicion and fear. Changes to well-

216

Learning and Teathing in Higher Education

established course sLructures and approaches toteaching will require increased expenditure on ex-77periments in innovation and on programmes of staffdevelopment concentrating on improving lecturers'abilities to relate more effectively to theirstudents. It cannot be expected that a diversionof_resources to these objectives will be acceptedreadily,_ It is important that changes rewardingStaff and departments which try to provide highquality teaching and which are strongly doiiiiiiittedto helping their students to learn, should be com-bined_with an emphasis on the individual teather!5_responsibilities towards improving his own teaching-A delicate task facing_managersof higher educationinstitutions is to develop a climate of Self-eVaIo7ation and simultaneously to provide rewards for unitsand individuals that try to enhance the quality oftheir students' learning,

COMPLEMENTARY APPROACHES TO RESEARCH

Our findings on the approaches_to studyingadopted by students emphasize the importance Offlexibility and versatility; the need to adaptapproach to task demands and to alternate betweena holistic overall impression and the detailedexamination of evidence and logical argument, Thesefindings on students' approaches apply equally wellto our own research strategies. Not only have weincorporated into the research design both quali-tative methods (open interviewing of stUdentS) andquantitative methods (multivay-iate analyses ofquestionnaire responses) but there has been adeliberate alternation between the two styles ofresearch. its strengths and its limiat ions.The open interviews allow major explanatory COnStru° tsto emerge out of the students' own descriptions oftheir__ experiences of learning and teaching; Theinterviews cover, at least potentially, the wholerange of influences on student learning and allowboth development and variability in_strategy toemerge and experience of causality in relationshiP5to be reported. The questionnaires_are designed t°measure dimensions defined in advance;are closed and restrict freedom of expression. gut8tI9nsthe strength of relationships between the iimensionsof- studying is determined by analyzing scale scoresand the multivariate analyses enable pate,-ns ofrelationsW_ps to be explored in more cottolled andsophisticated ways than are possible in t-Ile necessarilyimpressionistic analyses of interview transcripts.

217

234


The altethatiOh Of qualitative and quantitativemethods can be illustrated in two main ways - first4thtbugh the development of the inventory of approaches

to studying. The inventory was developed_from fourmain sources - a_previous inventory of study methodsand motivation, Biggs' study processes questionnaire,Marton's and Pask's descriptions of approaches andstyles, and the pilot interviews with students.The previous inventory and Biggs' questionnaire don-tained;in part; items designed to indicate psycho-lbgical traits - four forms_of_ motivation. These

items it could be argued, laCk ecological validity -they derive from theories of motivation rather thanfrom the experiences Of students._ _But_this is_only

partly true. The early stages of development ofsuch inventories involve_asking students not only torespond to the items within the controlled formatprovided; but also to comment on the items and suggest

areas not covered. The dimensions suggested byMarton have even clearer ecological validity;_ theyrepresent descriptions_made by the students themselves.The process of developing the inventory_involved__repeated reconsideration of the sub-scaleS, addingnew items and omitting existing ones; on the baSisboth of factor analyses and of insights derived fromthe interviews with students. Thus the dimensionsutlimately tapped by the inventory are firmly rootedin the_ experiences of the students.

The second illustration of alternation comes ftbtthe relationship betWeen approaches to learning andmethods of teaching and assessing. Repeatedly; in _

the intervieWS; students explained how their_ approacheswere affected by lectuterS and by thA forms of_assess-tent they experienced. The interview transcriptsprovide strong eVidende of the_perceived causalityof these relationships; and indiVidOal quotations inthe previous chapters have shown in detail whatspecific aspects of teaching are_seen to influencestudents' learning under particular circumstances.The interviews enable the researcher not only to des-cribe_the relationships, but through empathy_with_theexperiences reported; to reconstruct the students'perceptions of reality imaginatively and so to_under7_stand more fully the nature of student learning; T17e

multivariate analyses have provided both a quantitatileverification of the insights gained from the,inter-views, and have also provided additional insights intothe complex patterns of relationships that exist,particularly between approaches and styles; and be-tween the outcome of learning and combinations ofpersonal charadteristics (study organization and

218

235


motivation)_and departmental contexts (workload andfreedom in learning).

We would argue that; in our_experience, neitherqualitative nor quantitative methods of researchtaken separately can provide a full and a convincingexplanation of student learning; _ It does not seempossible to integrate the two styles of research:they pull researchers in opposite directions._ Itmay_not_even be possible for a single researcher towork effectively in both ways: some people have astrong emotional attachment to a way of describingthe world which precludes one or other of thesestyles of research. Research; like learning, is anexpression of pervasive underlying cognitive prefer-ences and valUe systems. Nevertheless it seemsessential that an understanding of student learning -

should be built up from an appropriate alternation ofevidence and insights derived from both qualitativeand quantitative approaches to research. In ourview the strength of our evidence on student learningis the direct result of this inter-play of contrastingmethodologies; and has led to a realistic and usefuldescription of approaches and contexts of learningin higher education.

REFERENCES

Allport, G.W. (1963) Pattern and Growth in Personality,_ New York: Holt; Rinehart and WinstonAffiir, V. and Krausz, M. (1974) Factors of satis-

faction and importance_in_an academic setting;Human Relations, 27; 211-223

Ashby, E. (1973) The structure of higher_ education:a world view; Higher Education, 2, 142-151.

Atkinson, J:W. and Feather, N.T. (1966) -A Theory ofAchievement Motivation,_ New York,_ Wiley

Bartlett; F;C (1932) ReMeffiberinq, Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press

Beard, R.M., Levy, Pal; and Maddox, H. (1962) Aca-demic performance at university. Educ. Rev.,16, 163- 174

Becher, A. and Kogan, M; (1980) Proce -ss andSrueture in Higher E-ducatdoni London: Heinemann

Becker; H.S., Geer, B. and Hughes, EC:_(1988) _

Making the Grade: the Academlc-SIde-COIlegeLife. NeW York: Wiley

Bernstein; B.B. (1971)_ On_the classification andframing of educational knowledge. In Young,M.F.D.JEd.I _Knowledge and Control, London:Collier-Macmillan

219

236

REFERENCES

Mori, J., Atkins; A.L.i Briar, J.S., Leaman; R.L.;

Millet; and Tripodi; T: 11966) Clinicaland Social Judgement: The Discrimination ofBchavioural_Informationi New York: Wiley

Biggs,_J.B. (1976) Dimensions of study behaviour:another look at A.T.I.,Br--J--edue PsychoI.,46; 68-80

Bi,gsi J.B. _11978) IndiVidUal and group differencesin study processes; Br. J. educ.-PSythdl: A8;266-279

Biggs, J.B. (1979) Individual differente8 in studyprofesses and the quality of learning outcomes,Higher-Edisatibn, 8; 381-394

Biggs, J.B. and Collis; K.E._ (1982) _Evaluating theQuality of Learning: the-SOLO Taxonomy; New York:Academic Press

Biglan, A._ (1973a) The characteristics of subject_matter in different academic areas, Journal ofApp-1-ib_d Psychology; 57, 195-203

Biglan, A. (1973b) RelatiOnShip8 between subjectmatter characteristics and the structure andoutput of university departmentsApplied Psychology, 57,_204 -213.

Birney, R.C:, Burdick; 11., and Teevani R C. (1969)

Fear of Failure, New York: Van Nostrand_Brennan, _J.L. and Percy, K.A. (1977) What dO

students want? An analysis of_staff andstudent perceptions in BritiSh higher education.In Bonboir, A. (ed:); Instructional_ Design inHigher.-Education, EUropean Association forResearch and Development in Higher EdUcation, 1,

125-152Brew, A. (19_81) Underlying theMOS in study methods

teaching. Paper presented at the 5th Ihter-national Conferende on Higher Education, 1-4September 1981, University of Larit-a8tot

Broadbent, D.E. (1966) _The_well-ordered mind, An.

educ. Res. 3., a, 281-295Bronowski; J. (1965) The Identity -Of Man, London:

HeinemannBurt, C. (1965)__ Factorial StUdieS of personality and

their bearing on_the_workof teachers, Br. -J-:educ. Psydhel., 35; 368-378

Burt; C. (1971)_ The mental differentSS between childrenIn Cok CE3; and Dyson; A.E. (Eds.) The BlackPapers on- Educ-ation. London: Davis Poynter

BUtcher;_H.J. and_Ruddi E. (1972) CoatempOtaryProblems in Higher Education; London: McGraw-Hill

Cattell; R:B. (1965) The Scientific Analysis of per-saari_Alty; Harmondsworth: Penguin

220237

REFERENCES

Centra,_J.A. (1976) Student ratings of instructionand their relationship to student learning,Princetor.; N.J.:_Educational Testing Service

Craik, F.I.M. and Lockhart, R.S. (1972) Levels ofprocessing: a framework for memory_ research;J;_verb; Learn. verb. Behay., 11; 671-684

Craik, F.I.M. and Tulving, E. (1975) Depth of pro-cessing and the retention of words in_spisodicmemory, J. exp. Psychbl (Gen.), 104, 268-294

0..utchfield, R.S. (1962) Conformity and creativethinking In Gruber, H.E. Terrell, G., andWertheimer, M. (Eds.), Contemporary Approachesto Creative Thinkingi_New_York:_Atherton

Dahlgren, L.O. (1978) Qualitative differences in con-ceptions of basic principles in EconomicsPaper read to the 4th International Conferenceon Higher Education at Lancaster, 29th August-1st September, 1978

Dihtgren, L.O. and Marton, F. (1978) Students' con-ceptions of subject matter: an aspect oflearning and teaching in higher education,Studies in Higher Ethic., 3, 25-35

e Bono; E. (1971) The Use of Lateral Thinking;Harmondsworth: Penguin

Dore, R. (1977) __The_Diploma Disease, London: UnwinDubin; R. and Taveggia; T. (1969) The Teaching-

Learntrig-Paradox, Eugene, Oregon: University ofOregon Press

Entwistle; N.J. (1975) How students learn: informationprocessing, intellectual development and con-frontation; Higher Education Bulletin; 3; 129-148

EntWiStle; N.J. (1979) Stages, levels, styles orstrategies:- dilemmas in the_description ofthinking; Educ. Rev., 31; 123-132

Entwistle, N.J. (1981) Styles of Learning and Teaching:An:Integrative_Outline of Educational Psychology;ChiChester: Wiley

Entwistle,_N,J, and Bennett, S.N. (1973) The inter-relationships between Personality, DivergentThinking-and-School Attainment, Final Report tothe SSRC_on project_MR_1346

Entwistle, N.J. and Entwistle, D.M. (1970) Therelationships between personality, study methodsand academic performance; Br. J. educ. Psycho.,40, 132-41

Entwistle, N.J., Hanle Yi M. and Ratcliffe; G._ (1979a)Approaches to learning and levels of understanding,Br.-J. educ. Res., 5, 99-114

Entwistle; N.J.; Hanley, M. and Hounsell, D.J. (1979b)Identifying distinctive approaches to studying,Higher Educ., 8, 365-380

221

2 3 8

REFERENCES

Entwistle, N.J. and Percy; K;A;_(1971) Educationalobjectives and student performance within thebinary system; In Research into Higher Edu-ction 1970, London: S.R.H;E;

Entwistle, N.J. and Perc Yi K.A. (19741 Criticalthinking or conformity?_ An investigation of_the aiNs and outcomes of higher education. InResearch into Higher Education 1973; London:S.R.H.E.

Entwistle; N.J.; Thompson;_ J.B.and Wilson, J.D. (1974)Motivation and study habits. Higher Educ., 3,379-96

Entwistle; N.J. and Wilson; J.D. (19701 Personality,study methods and academic performance; Univ.Quart., 21, 147-66

Entwistle;_N;J; and_ Wilson; J.D. 11977) DegreesExcellence: The Academic-Achievement Game,London: Hodder & Stoughton

Eysenck, H.J. (1965) Fact and Fiction in Psychology,Harmondsworth: Penguin

Eysenck, H.J. (1970) _ The Structure of Human Person-ality, London: RoUtledge and Kegan Paul

Eysenck; H.J. and Eysenck; S.B.G. (1969) 'Psychoticisnin children: a new personality variable, Res. inEduc., 1, 21-37

Foarn-Wannan; H. (1979) _ Students' perceptions oflecturers as determinants of academic performancein first-year chemistry. Paper presented at theAnnual Conference of the S;R;H.E;; Brighton,December 1979

Fransson; A. (1977) On qualitative differences inlearning. IV - Effects of motivation and tC:stanxiety on process and outcome, Rr--J---EdUC;Psychol;; A7; 244=257

Gaff, J.G.,CroMbag, H.F.M. and Chang, T;M; (1976)_Environments for learning in a Dutch university,Higher Education, 5, 2857-299 _

Gamson; Z.F. (1966) Utilitarian and normative orien-tations- toward education, Sociology of Education,39, 46 -73

Gibbs; G. (1981) Teaching Students to Learn; MiltonKeynes: Open University Press

Glaser; B. and Strauss, A. 11967) The Diccovery ofGrounded Theou; New_York:

Godfrey ThoMadh Unit (1971) Ad- Ian -ced- Verbal Reason-ing Test; Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh,Department of Education _

Hajnal, J. (1972) The Student Trap, Harmondsworth:Penguin_

Hartnett, R.T. and Centra; J.A. (1977) The effectsof academic departments on student learning,J. Higher Educ., 48; 491-507

222 * (Frederick et al see end)

REFERENCES

Heath, R. (1964) The Reasonable AdventurerPittsburgh: University of PittsbUrgh PteSS

Heist; F) and Yonge, G. (1960), Omnibus PersonalityInventor; New -York: Psychological Corporation

Hermans; B.M.J. (1979) Student and system: academicsuccess and study problems in relation with -

characteristics of the academic environment andof the ttUdents. In Van Trotsenburg, E.A. (Ed.) iEi2hel_EgusItion:_ A Field of Study, 5 vols:Bern:_ Veriag_Peter Lang

Hodgson; VE. (1981) The use of stimulated recall ineducation_research Paper presented at the 5thInternational Conference on Higher EdUtatien,1

4 September, University of_Lancaster _

Hoyle, F. (1950) The Nature of the Universe; OxfOrd:- Blackwell

HUdSen, L. (1966) Contrary Imaginations; London:Methuen_

Jung, C.C. (1938) Psychological Types; London: KeganPauli Trench and Truber

Kagan; J., Rossman, B.1., Albert, J., and PhillipsiW._(1964)_Information processing -in the child:significance of analytic and reflettive atti-tudes. p...52chological_Monographsi General andApplied_i_ 78i (J., whole no. 578)

Kogan; N; (1976) Cognitive Syles--in Infancy_andEarly Chi1dhood, Hillsdale, N.J: LawrenceErlbaum_ _

Rogan; N. and Wallach, M.A. (1964) Risk Taking, NewYork: Holti_Rinehart and_Winston

Kulik;_J;A; and McKeachie, W.J. (1975) The evaluationOf teachers in higher education. In Kerlinger;F.N. (Ed;); Review of Research inE,dil-catdh---3.Itasca, Peecock Publishers

Lautillard, D.M. (1978) A study of the relationshipbetween some of the cognitive and contextualfactors involved in student learning. - Un-published_Ph..D_thesis, University of Surrey

LauriIlard; D.M. (1979) The processes of studentlearning;-Higher Education, -8 _,_ 395-409

Lindsay, P;11 and Norman, D.A. (1972) Human InformationProcessiD5, NewYork: Academic_Press_

Longi S. (1978) Student types and the evaluationof the university, Higher-Education, 6, 417-436

Main, A.- (1980) Enoouraging Effective Learning;Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press

Manook, S. and King. A.R. (1981)_ Notetaking inlectures.Paper presented at the_5th InternationalConferente on Higher Education, 1 - 4 September,University -of Lancaster_

Marton, F. (1975) On non-verbatim learning. II - the

* (Hughes-Jones - see end) 240223

REFERENCES

erosion effect of a task-induced learning algo-rithm, 1pclfrorntheInstitute-of Education,University of Gothenburg, No: -40

Marton, F. (1976) What does it take to learn? Someimplications of an alternative view of learning.In Entwistle, N.J. (Ed;); Strategtes_forFtesearclikir-Etioaticin,Amsterdam: Swets and Zeitlinger

Marton, F. and Salj6; R. (1976a) On qualitativedifferences in learning._I - Outcome and process,Br. -J. educ.__Psychol.t_464_4 - 11

Marton, F. and Saljd, R. (1976b) On qualitativedifferences in learning. II - Outcome as afunction of the learner's conception of the task,Br. J. educ. Pay e1., 46-, 115-127

Marton, F. and Svensson, L. (1979) Conceptions ofresearch in student learning, Higher- Education;8, 471-486

Mathias, H. (1981) University learning and the -

school experience. Paper presented at the 5thInternational Conference on Higher Education,1 - 4 September, University of Lancaster

Messick, S. and_Associates (1976)Learning, San Francisco: Jossey Bass - _

Miller, C.M.L. and Parlettt M. (1974) VP-tb--the-Mark:A Study of_the_Examination -Caine, London:

Morgan, A., Gibbs, G., and Taylor, E. (1980) Students'Approaches to StudylngLtheSocial-Soiencc andTechnology Foundation Courses: PreliminaryStudies, StudY Methods Group Report NO. 4,Institute of Educational Technology, The OpenUniversity

Newman, J.H. (1852) On-the-Scope-and Nature ofUniversity Educationi_London: Dent _

Nie, N.J., Hull, C.H.; Jenkins, J.G.; Steinbrenner,K. and Bent, D.H. (1975) _Statistical Packagefor_thia Social Sciences (2nd edition), NewYork: McGraw-Hill

Pace, C.R. (1967) College and University Environ-ment Scales, Princeton, N.J.: Edueationa/

- _ Testing ServiceParlett, M. (1970) The_syllabus-bound student. In

Hudson, L. The EcologiaEHan-Intelligence,Harmondsworth: Penguin

Pascarella, E.T. and Terenzini, P.T. (1977) Patternsof student-faculty informal interaction beyondthe--classroom and voluntary freshman attrition,J---Hd4her-Edue., 48; 540-552

Pascarella. E. T._ and Terenzini, P.T. (1978) Student-faculty informal relationships and freshman yeareducational outcomes, J%Sdne. Research, 71,183-189

224

241.* (Messer - see end)

REFERENCES

Pask, G._(1976a) Conversational teChnigUeS in thestudy and practice of education, Br. J. educ.Psychol,, 48,__12723 _

Pask, G. (1976b) Styles and Strategies of learning,Bt. -J. educ._Psychol., 46, 128 -148

Pask, G. and Scott; B.C.E. (1972) Loarhihq Strategiesand indiVidUal competence, Int. J. Man-MachineStudies, 4, 217-253

Pask, G. et al (1977) Third prb4to-Repott on SSRCReSaa-rch-T° rogrammeHR 2708 (see also Fourth__Progress Report,_1978,_and Final: Report 1979);System Researdh LiMited, 37 Shee6 Road, Richmond,Surrey

Pattison, M. (1876) Philosophy at 0J;cfOtd, Mind, I,84-97

Payne, -D.A. and Hobbs, A.M. (1979) The effect ofcollege course evaluation feedback on instructorand student_perceptions of instructional- climateand_offootiveness Higher Edutati6h; -8-, 525-533

Peel; E.A. (1978) Generalising through the verbal_medium, Br. -J. educ. Psychol., 48, 36-46

Percy, K.A. and Ramsdoh; (1980) Independent-Study:Two-Ex-amples from English Higher Education,

_ Guildford: _S.R.H.E. _

Perry; W.G: (1970) F-4.446,8-C-f-Intellectual_and_EthicalDevelopment in the College Years: a Scheme,New York: Holt, Rinehatt and Wihaton

Perry, W.G. (1978) Sharing the costs in growth, InParker, C.A. (Ed.)__Encouraging DevelOpMgOt inCollege Students, Minneapolis: University ofMinnesota Press

Peterson, R.E. (1965) On a_typology of collegestudents Research Bulletin, RB65-9. Princeton,N.J.: Educational Testing Service : _

Pines M. (1976) A child's mind is Shaped before age2. In Dentler, R.A. and Shapiro, B.--(Eds.),

Educational _Psychology: ConteYork: Harper and Row

Raaheim, K._(1976)_Do_we need convergent thinking?Paler _presented- at the 21st International-Con-fer of Py:2/±2121y, Paris, July 1976

Raaheim, K. _and Wankowski, J._(1981) Helping Studentsto Learn -at univorgity; Bergen: Sigma Forlag

Ramsden, P. (1976) Course evaluation in highereducation4__Unpublished_M;Phil. thesis; C.N.A.A.

Ramsden, P. (1979) StUdent learning and perceptionsof the academic environment, Higher Education,8, 411-428__

Ramsden, P. (1981) A-Stdy-ef-the-Relationship betweenStudent Learning and its Academic Context Un-published PhD thesis, uhivotgity Of LandaSter

225

242

REFERENCES

Ramsden, P. and Entwistle, N.J. (1981) Effects ofacademic departments on students' approaches tostudying., Br. J. educ. Psychol.i 51; 368-383

Robertson, I.T. (1977) An investigation of somerelationships between learning and personality,Unpublished PhD thesis, The Open University

Roe, A. (1956) The Psychology-of-0-ooupons, NewYork: Wiley_

Rogers, C.R. (1969) Freedom to-Learn, Columbus; Ohio:Merrill

Rowntree, D. (1977) Assessing Students: How Shallwe Know-Them?, London: Harper fx ROW

S:Aljo, R. (1975) Qualitative Differences in Learningas a Tunetien-elf-the Learner's Conception ofthe Task, Gothenburg: Acta UniversitatisGothoburgensis

S31jo, R. (1979a) Learning in the learner's pers-pective:_I - Some commonsense conceptions,Reports-from-the -Institute of Education,University of Gothenbura, No. 76_

Salj6; R. (1979b) Learning in the learner's pers-pective: II - differences in awareness, Reportsfrom the Institute of Education,-University ofGdttinki_ileg; 77

Saljb_r R. (1979c) Learning about learning, HigherEducation; 8; 443.7.451

Sliljer, R. (1981) Learning approach and outcome: someempirical observations, Instruction-ad Science,10, 47-65

Schmeck, R.R. (in press) Learning styles of collegestudents; In Dillon, R. and Schmeck, R.R.IndivIdUel-Differences in Cognition, New York:Academic Press

Schmeck, R.R. and Phillips, J.,(in press) Levelsof processing as a dimension of difference

_ between individualsi Human LearningSchwab, J.J. (1964) Structure of the disciplines:

meanings and significances. In Ford, A.W._and Pugnoi L. (eds.) TheStructure of Knowledgeand-the-Cur-rieUlum, Chicago:_ Rand McNally

Smithers, A.G. (1969) A structural study Of theoccupational value orientations of engineeringstudents, Voo. Aspect, 21-, 129-134_

Snyder; B.R. (1971) The Hidden Curriculum, NeW York:KnOpf

Sternr C.G. (1970) Reople in-ConteXt, New York:Wiley

Svensson, L. (1976) Study Skill and Learning,Gothenburg: Acta UniversitatiS Gothoburgensis

Svensson; L. (1977) On qualitative differences inlearning. III - Study skill and learning;

226 243

REFERENCES

Er. J. educ_. 47; 233-243Tabberer, R., and Allman, J. (1981) Study_Skills at

16 plus: an- interim Report, Slough: NationalFOUndatien for Educational Research

Taylor; E.; Morgan, A., and Gibbs, _G. (1981)Students' orientations to study. Paperpresented at the 5th International Conferenceon Higher Education, 1 - 4 September, Universityof Lancaster

Thompson; J.B. (1981) An Interview Study_of the ___Attitudes; Expectations and Motivations -of 124students-el-I-richer Education, unpublished PhDthesis; University of Lancaster

Thompson, J.D., Hawkes, R.W., and Avery, R.W. (1969)Truth strategies and university organization,Educ. Admin. (:).; 5; 4-25

Veblen; T. (1957) (First published 1918) The HigherLearning_in America; New York: Hill and Wang_

Wankowski, J.A. (1973) Temperamen t.:-KetkatiOn-andAcademic Achievement, Birmingham: University ofBirmingham- Educational Survey

Watkins, D. (1982) Identifying the study processdimensions of Australian university students.

_ Australian Journal of _Education, 26; 76-85Whitehead, A.N. (1950) (First published 1932) The

Aims of Educat=or and other Essays; London:Ernest Henn

Williams, G.L. (1978) In defence of diplomas; HigherEducation, 7; 363-371

Wilson, R.C., Gaff, J.G., Dienst, E.R. Wood, L., andPavry, J.L_. (1975) College Professors and TheirImpact on Students-, New York: Wiley

Witkin, H.A. (1976) Cognitive style in academicperformance and in teacher-student relations;In Messick, S. (Ed.), IndivIduallty in Learning,San Francisco: JQssey Bass

Witkin, H.A., Moore, C.A., Goodenough, D.R., andCox, P.W. (1977) Field-dependent and field-independent cognitive styles and -theireducational implications, Re-v.- educ. Res., 47, 11-64

Frederick, J., Hancock, L., James, B., Bowden, J., andMacMillan, C., (1981) Learning SkiIls:_a Reviewof needs and services to university-stUdentS,Melbourne: Centre for the Study of Higher Educatio;University of Melbourne _ _

Hughes-Jones, H., (1979) Attributional Analysis of StudentPerceptions and the Reasons for academic success andfailure. Paper presented at the Annual Conferenceof the S.R.H.E., Bright, December 1979

Messer, S., (1976) Reflection - Impulsivity: a review;Psychol. Bull., 83, 1026-1052.

24 227

APPENDIX

Table Al ITEMS CONTAINED IN THE FINAL RESEARCH VERSION OF THEAPPROACHES TO STUDYING INVENTORY

MEANING ORIENTATION

;I 11;iie.z = 0.

Corrected*item-scale totalcorrelation

DA1 I generally put a lot of effort intotrying to understand things whichinitially seem difficult 0.38

DA2 I often find myself questioning thingsthat I hear in lectures or read inbooks 0.30

DA3 I usually set out to understandthoroughly the meaning of what I amasked to read. 0.37

DA4 When l'm tackling a new topic, Ioften ask myself questions about itwhich the new information shouldanswer 0.33

(0.47)

RI1 I try to relate ideas in one subject tothose in others, whenever possible

RI9 In trying to understand new ideas,often try to relate them to real lifesituations to which they might apply

RI3 I need to read around a subject prettywidely before I'm ready to put my ideasdown on paper

RI4 I find_it helpful_ to 'map out' a newtopic for myself by seeing hew theideas fit together

of Er zcience (

0.31

0.24

0.20

0.30

UE1 In reporting practical work, I like totry to work out several alternativeways of interpreting the findings 0.23

UE2 I am cautious in drawing con-clusions unless they are well supportedby evidence 0;13

* Corrected to remove contribution of that item to scale total

228

245

APPENDIX

(c-ontinu;31)

UE3 Puzzles or problems fascinate me, particularlywhere you have to work through the material toreach a logical conclusion 0.19

UE4 When I'm reading an article or research reportI generally examine the evidence carefully todecide whether the conclusion is justified 0.27

Motivatioil (072)

IM1 My main reason for being here is so that Ican learn more about the subjects whiCh reallyinterest me 0.49

IM2 I find_ that studying academic topics canoften be really exciting and gripping

IM3 I spend a good deal of my spare time infinding out more about interesting topicswhich have been discussed in classes

114 I Eind academic topics so interesting,should like to continue with them after Ifinish this .nurse

REPRODUCING ORIENTATION

SZ.<1.11"Zi-,,2 Approach (O 49)

SA1 Lecturers seem to delight in making thesimple truth unnecessarily complicated

SA2 I find I have to concentrate on_memorisinga good deal of what we have to learn

SA3 When I'm reading I try to memorise importantfacts which may come in useful later

SA4 The best way for me to understand whattechnical terms -mean i5 to remember thetext-boOR definitions

0.55

0.44

0.56

0.21

0.32

0.13

0.24

SA5 I usually don't have time to think aboutthe implications of what I have read: 0.28

SA6 Often I find I have read things Without havinga chance to really understand them

3ylLabu8-Boundnea-,1 (O 5t)

0.32

SB1 I like to be told precisely what to doin essays or other assignments 0.38

229

APPEND L X

SR.' Iprefe_coursys to be clearly structured

OrOniSad

tiGi I tend Co read very littic beyond what'srequired tor completing assignments

FFI The ttontinnal pressure of work-assignments,deadlines and competition often makes metense and depressed

FF2 A poor first_ answer in an exam makes me panic

FF3 Haying to speak in tutorials is quite anordeal for me

0.33

0.27

0.30

0.30

0.22

E11 Ichose my present courses mainly to give me

a Chance of a really good job afterwards 0.63

1212 }Iv main reason for being here is that it willhelp me to get a better job 0.67

EM3 Igenerally choose courses more from the way

they fit in with career plans than from my owninterests 0.58

1214 I suppose_t_am more interested in the qualifi-Catitig 1'1I get than in the courses I'm taking 0.46

ACHIEVING ORIENTATION

( C.

ST1 Lecturers sometimes give indications_ of what islikely to come up in exams, so I look out forwhat may be hints 0.16

ST2 When I'm doing a piece of work, I try to bearin mind exactly what that particular lecturer

seems to want 0.16

ST3 If conditions aren't_right for me to study, Igenerally manage to do something to change them 0.18

ST4 One way or another I manage to get hold of thebooks I need for studying 0.16

to iJ 1.IetiJoJ:.3 ((?1) (1,071,3rned:Touring)

PSI 1- find-itdifficult to organise my study timeeffectively

230

247

0.52

APPENDIX

DS2 My habit of putting of work leaves me withfar too much to do at the end of term

DS3 Distractions make it difficult for me to domuch effective work in the evenings

D54 I'm rather slow at starting work in theevenings

.ro . C) (

:7L'opirzg)

0;50

0;46

0.52

NA1 Often ffind myself wondering whether the workI am doing here is really worthwhile 0.44

NA2 Continuing my education was something whichhappened to me;_rather than something I tb-diis,wanted for myself

NA3 When I look back; I sometimes wonder why Iever decided to come here

NA4 I certainly want to_pass the next set_ofexams, but it doesn't really matter if Ionly just scrape through

A c;-..:,:t :.2nt.: Mot tn:tt.-ion (0.58)

AN1 I enjoy competition: I find itstimulating

AM2 It's important to me to do really well inthe courses here

AM3 It is important to me to do things betterthan my friends

AN4 I hate admitting defeat; even in trivialmatters

STYLES AND PATHOLOGIES OF LEARNING

or3:1,...J:n. (

CL1 Ideas in books often set me off on longchains_of thought of my own; only tenuoUSIyrelated to what I was reading

CL2 In trying to understand a puzzli.g idea; T.

Iet my imagination wander freely to beginwith, even if i don't seem to be much nearera solution

0.37

0.48

0.25

0.43

G.32

0.48

0.25

0.45

0.39

231

APPENDIX

; 1,',11111/ (,q,911.1n1Wd)

CL3 I like to play around with ideas of my owneven if they don't get me very far 0.47

( ;1,4 Often when I'm reading books, the ideas pro-duce vivid images which sometimes take on alife of their own 0.41

;)v

GTI Although I have a fairly good general ideaol many things, my knowledge of the details israther weak 0;13

GT2 In trying to understand new topics; I oftenexplain them to myself in ways that otherpeople don't seem to follow 0.16

GT3 I often it criticised for introducingirrelevant material into my essays ortutorials 0.25

CT4 I seem to be a bit too ready to jump toconclusions without waiting for all theevidence 0;24

c-t J Zug ( CI

OL1 I generally prefer to tackle each_parL ofa topic or problem in order, working outone ar a time 0.32

0L2 1 prefer to follow well tried out approachesto problems rather than anything tooadventurong 0.29

0L3 I find it better to start straight away withthe details of a new topic and build up anoverall picture in that way 0;18

0L4 I think it is important co look at problemsrationally and logically without makingintuitive jumps 0.34

( C:

IP1 Although I generally remember facts anddetails; I find it difficult -to fit themtogether into an overall picture 0.25

1P2 I find it_difficult to "switch tracks"when working on a problem: I prefe- tofollow each line of thought as far as it 0.19will go

232 249

APPENDIX

1...;;;)

LP3 Tutors seem. to want me to be moreadventurous in making use of my own ideas 0.22

IP4 I find I Lend to reMember things best ifconcentrate on the order in which thelecturer presented them

u

0.26

233

CORRELATIONS BETWEEN SUB-SCALES OF THE APPROACHES TO STUDYING INVENTORY

Meaning Reproducing Achieving

Style and

Pathologies

DA RI UE IM SA SB EM Si DS NA AM CL GL OL IP

D-cp Apo-0A 48 43 47 -09 -28 -05 -12 24 -22 -25 19. 32-03 06 -05

Relating Ideas 40 39 -03 -22 03 -11 22 -10 -17 13 39 08 03 02

Use of Evidence 36 -11 -0 -0 -03 21 -14 -22 20 24 -12 15 -01

Intrinsic MotiVation -20 -37 -08 -35 17 -22 -41 16 37 -07 -07 -12

Lt

Surface Approaeh 37 32 28 18 18 23 11 -09 24 29 42

Syllabus-Boundness 27 32 06 24 22 06 -28 11 37 35

Fear of Failure 15 03 22 21 04 -01 19 22 39

Extrinsic NotiVation 16 07 13 20 -19 04 30 27

;, .

S[ratiO Approach -20 -17 25 03 -09 24 12

Disorganized Study Methods 30 -10 06 24 "05 13

Negative Attitudes to Studying -24 -02 25 -02 13

Achimmai Motil-ration 04 -02 19 08

I

Comprehension Learning 18 -23 -12

CtobetrottLng -07 19

Operation Learning 41

Decimal pinks omitted.

Taal Sample N = 2208; tottaatiou statistically significant with r >0.06

Table A3 INTERCORRELATIONS BETNEEN INVENTORY SUB-SCALES AND PSYCHOLOGICAL TEST BATTERY

1'

01.4

0

a

001.4

0

H0

-4:4

A0V14

ti

v'-4;1

AW

-V

40 w

Tot Suh-scales.4)

4H .1C

- .

NVP._4PrPilch 48 30 ;1

Relating idep_ 36 28 33

Use of Evidence04 15 01

Intrinsic Motivation 45 22 35

Ji

5Surface Approach -31 74 703

Syllabus Bound -48 '30Fear-of-Failure -04 -03 07

Eittrinic Motivation -62

,1

Pi$Pr011id -12.13 -03 09 22 08 02 23 -08.22 -0 20 -03 16 -06 -07.04 20 04. . 02 20 13 -08 -01 20 28 15 01 10 Ob 31 -15 -12 -25 0 14 -15 11 11

0

4.4

0

-0

to

0.r4

0sd

00 U

A N

rl

0U

014 I)

00 4 0

0

0tl) 0

14 V 0Ci) 0 V 0

iC U A 0 00 X 0 0 R.

HI 0 0 0V

0 0 Li:4 U 00.4 0 trl U

01.4

4.4 0 is 4 U r4

-o14 ci

4 0

a.1 4:V '0

VA 44

V

U

pI0 p4 114

4144

40

0 p4

14

27 14 dl 18 28 -05.07 U-4-()3-06 Of -2l 20 -01 19 24

21 26 15 10 21 -18 -19 .03.09 03 09 13 -15 15 -03 14 11

-16 -09 -04 04 -04 -07 -16 -011 20 21 02 05 23 04 -13 -01.01

09 08 01 -11 08 -21 .22 10 -20 -16 06 01 -11 09 03.14 -05

-14.12 01 10 -14 -11 -18 18 07 -11 -11 04 12 -10 -10 -II

-31 -21 U 06 .0 17 03 05 47 .13 -14 -23 05 -06 02 -05 .01

-10 09 -02 -25 11 -23 -38 -21 20 14 02 -05 06 65 -13 03 -11

=19.46 -47 -13 08 03 01 07 16 -08 5/ -15 -10 -21 02 -17 07 -13 -14

Negative Attitude

Achievement MotivatA

4,,aamasaa-0-.-67.-

u Comprehension

0 Globetrotting

t Operation

< Improvidence

-25.22 -07 -07 04 -11 -15 08 -06 26.28.03 28 -11.07 11 00 01 21 17

ion20 18 13.07 -11 -04 -14 03 -38 -35 -22 30.01 -05 -02 02 10 -03 -03 -04

- . - . - . - - .

52 39 43 13 11 11 04 3O-1-22-06-l1 23 07 13 08 -02.04 20 _16

_15 11 _34. 23 0 '06 -01 23 -27.21 -31 02 10 -03 13.06 09 04 18.02-23 -06 -30 - 37.16.01 02 -I) 03 -02 01 39 -11 -01 -28 05 23 -11 -18 -09

08 06 IG -12 10 -11 -11 11 -07 -10 11 28 - 26.05.08 -13 07 OS -09 -10

252

1:..) Table A) INTERCORRELATIONS BUREN INVENTORY SUB-SCALES AND PSYCHOLOCTCAL TEST BATTERY

Test Sub-scales

..... -arrm...*.a.m...10.

,rv....

Thinking Introversion

Theoretical Orientation

P.' Aestheticism,

. Complexity

Autonomy' _ .

)

,m, 2 mkiilos_scoUcig

cl Social Extraversion

Impulse Expression

2 - Personal Integration

Lack of Anxiety

Altruism

Practical Outlook

0

0 U

1.4

A.

0

0

40

-u -41

14 -0

0fr 4 4 GD

0 0 040

I4 4.0

U

-0

H 4 Uiip4

52 66 51 35 13 12

24 40 14 45 30

52 34 .4 22

46 33 19

01.1

0

a

w.....0.1..1.1.014.011.1.411.1N

0

4 :),

C.0 ;J

0

4i

X

ro wG 00

ti ,g14U4Uwol-lux4Uol$44

0

11,4

0

F4

C c', 1.1

N N 0

a ,,1 ik U,..10 t4* c00410

F4 I r4 14 LI 1:1 4 ;,

i; C 0 0 G 0 0

0 0 C 0 0 000110.0- NO4U10 ,tJ 0m1- -t)0m01MC40 fJ-0.14 4m4,u 4 U I-I 4 LI 44

'14 10 0 4-004m4 4 k J4U,i011

CIA 01k 44 wli 44 A LA 44 4

16 -05 -01

10 11 29

30 -12 -02

53 -01 01

421)260712

33 0 P9 'A

19 4 0-19 01

61

26 -36 02 OS 19 -12 24 -15 11 05

17 02 05 19 05 05 15 -12 11 05

06 -09 04.06 02 -06 19 -14 24 01

04 -31 19 21 10 07 11 -11 14 03

18 -27 il 11 30 -08 -05 -11 18 -05

05 IP -04 -09 08 01 -16 14 -09

29 17 13 -05 -09 10 12 -19 14 05

09 02 02 -01 09 03.04 -10 25 21

50 12 -06 05 -02 -14 00 06 02 -06

49 20 -22 -16 -17 -14.04 IG 18 15

- 04.21 -04 02 -26 -05 12 -02 15

-21 -13 -18 00 OG -01 -10 -25

..F,R.,141YMIM

Verbal Reasoning

CAColireCe

...._ Abstract Generalizing

Er Field Independence

XFF

f lee t iveness

Inaccuraq

TC Flexibility

VO Verbal Fluency

,

Decimal points omitted

Correlations of above .22 are significant at 5/, level

.m.m.,,1111,111WAMI.1=Y

39 68 50 19 -lb 19 -02

56 22 22 -31 -15 -32

07 1.8.3' 06 -37

22 -42 -05 -04

-52 -01 -07

08 /0

59

Table M CORRELATIONS BENEEN THE SCALES OF THE 'APPROACHES TO STUDYING' INVENTORY AND THE

INVENTORY OP LEARNING PROCESSES (N r. 269)

.P.....*,.____............._ a......__________,.............._

Learning Processes Meaning Reproducing Achieving Learning

OtintAtibn Orientation Orientation Style

DA RI DE IM SA SB FF EM ST OM* PA* AM CL CL a IP

Deep Processing ,14 ,10 .23 .13 -.39 -,22 -41 -26

......._

,21 28 19 OG

____12 -34 -13 -40

Elaborative pro-

cessing

36 39 34 33 -23 -22 -22 -19 18 18 15 06 26 00 02 -1G

Fact retention 05 -03 06 05 -07 -01 -18 -08 26 16 16 12 00 -27 -06 -12

Methodical study 38 30 32 G3 -01 -20 00 -05 34 49 26 24 00 -06 08 12

The directions of scoring have been reversed to indicate organized study methods and positive

attitudes,

This analysis 'as carried out at Southern Illinois by Dr, Schmeck, and became available to

lat . to incorporate comments on these relationships in the text, These tenative findings confirm

the suggestion that our reproducing orientation is similar to 'shallow processing', Meaning

orientation turns out to overlap substantially; with elaborative processing, as expected, but

also with.'methodical study Our achieving orientation covers deep processing, methodical

study, and fact retention, while our pathology scales are negatively related to_deep pro-

cessing and to a less extent to fact retntion; Oat I8tyle' ditensionS Sh6-1 little overall

correspondence, although there is some link between comprehension learning and elaborative

to processing. These correlations imply a good deal of overlap between the EVO inventories in the

domain that is being assured; but little conceptual agreement on the dimensions involved.

APPENDIX

Table ,\ ITEMS CoNTAINEO IN THE FINAL RESEARCH VERSION OF THECOURSE PERCEPTIONS QUESTIONNAIRE

Corrected itemscalecorrelation

(a7. 0

Fri A_grcar deal of my time is taken up_by_timetabled classes (lectures, practicals,tutorials. etc)

1T2 You can learn nearly everything you needto know from the classes and lectures; itisn't necessary to do much further reading

1T3 In this department you're expected tospend a tot of time studying on your own *

1 'r4 Lecturesin this department are basicallya guide to reading *

VT5 Lectures seem to be more important thantutorials or discussion groups in thisdepartment

cl-Jap aud (C1 7(;)

CGI You usually have clear idea of whereyou're going and what's expected of youin this department

CG2 It's always easy here to know the standardof work expected of you

CG3 It's hard to know how well you're doingin the courses here *

CG4 LecLurers here usually tell studentsexactly what they are supposed to belearning

CGS Lecturers here generally make it clear rightfrom the start what will be required ofstudents

wo).,;.7loaa' (CI

WL1 The workoad here is too heavy

WL2 It sometimes seems to me that the syllabustries to cover too many topics

WL3 There is so much written work to be donethat it is very difficult to get down toindependent reading

* reversed scoring238

255

0.49

0.56

0.38

0.44

0.43

0.54

0.60

0.42

0.50

0.58

0.54

0.19

0.29

APPENDIX

IVL) . iJ I _.,,11,1,11t,

WL4 There seems re be COO much i400- to getthrough in the courses here 0.53

WL5 There's a lot of pressure on you as astudent here 0.39

Ltd, z710,2 ( 78)

VR1 The courses in thig department are geared tostudents' future employment 0.50

VR2 Lecturers In this department are keen topoint out that they are giving us a pro-fessional staining 0;34

VR3 The courses here seem to be pretty welldetermined by vocational requirements 0;50

VR4 The work I dO here Will definitely improvemy future employment prospects 0;19

VR5 There seems to be considerable emphasishere on inculcating the 'right' pro-fessional attitudes 0.27

6'ooLi G.JaAtnu (Clt;%)

GT1 Lecturers here frequently give theimpression that they haven't anything tolearn from students * 0.32

GT2 Most of the_staff here seem to preparetheir te-chifig very thoroughly 0.40

GT3 Lecturers in this department seem to begood at pitching their teaching at theright level for us 0;42

GT4 Staff here make a real effort to understanddifficulties students may be having withtheir work 0.49

GT5 The lecturers in this department always seemready to_give help and advice on approachegto studying 0.47

FItl'cic" 72)

FL1 There is a real opportunity in this depart-ment for students to choose the particularareas they want to study

* reversed scoring

0.48

239

APPENDIX

FPC. ,IPP11,I,1 (1! 1:") (cori

FL2 The deparcmc:!: really seems to encourage usto develop our own academic interests as faras possible

FL3 We seem, to be given a lot of choice here inthb work We have to do

FL4 This department gives you a chance to usemethods of study which suit your own way oflearning

FL5 Students have a great deal of_choice over howthey arc going to learn in this departtent

t),::?zrzcoc; to otudento (C "I a0S1 Most of the staff here are receptive to

suggestions from students for changes to theirteaching methods

0S2 Staff generally consult students before makingdecisions about how the courses are organiZed

0S3 Most of the lecturers hbre really try ?card toget to know students

0S4 Lecturers in this department seem to go_outof their way to be friendly towardS students

CS5 Lecturers in this department generally takestudents' ideas and interests seriously

(0. C5)

SC1 A lot of the students in this departmentare friends of mine

SC2 Students from this department often gettogether socially

SC3 This department seems to foster a friendlyclimate which helps students to get to knoweach other

SC4 This department organizes meetings and talkswhich are usually well attended

SC5 Students in this department frequently

240

discuss their work with each other

25 7

C.38

0.55

0;45

0.53

0.43

0.36

0.53

0.51

0.47

0.40

0;49

0.53

0.25

0.36

APPENDIX

Table A() MEANS OF SUBSCALES AND RANGES OF DEPARTMENTAL MEANSCORES, BY DISCIPLINE

Subscale

ENGLISH

Mean Range

HISTORY

Mean Range

Deep approach 11.2 10.2 - 12.7 11.3 10.4 - 12.0Relating ideas 10.5 8.6 - 11.5 10.1 9.6 - 11.2Use of evidence 9.4 9.1 - _9.6 9:5 8:9 - 10.6Intrinsic motivation 9.5 8 :1 10.3 8:5 7:3 9:6Surface approach 12.9 11.0 - 14.7 12.4 11.2 - 14.0Syllabus-boundness 7.0 5.4 - 8.1 7.6 6.4 - 8.7Fear of failure 5.8 4.5 6.9 5.7 5.0 - 6.4Extrinisic motivation 2.8 1.5 - 5.1 3.3 2.0 - 4.4Strategic approach 9.8 8.3 10.6 9.8 8.9 - 11.1Disorganized studymethods

9.2 7.8 11.4 8.2 7.1 - 10.6

Negative attitOdes 4:5 4:4 - 6:3 5-.9 5:0 - 6:4Achievement motivation 9.0 8.0 - 10.0 9.0 8:0 10.0Comprehension learning 11.0 10.0 - 11.7 8.7 7.8 - 10.0Globetrotting 7.8 6.8 8.9 7.2 6.3 - 8.5Operation learning 8.6 7.5 - 9.4 9.8 8.5 10.7Improvidence 6.8 4.4 - 8.4 7.1 6.3 - 8.0

Formal teaching methods 3.3 2.5 - 5.3 2:7 2.1 - 3.6Clear goals and standards 6.7 3.6 - 9.5 8.0 6.2 - 10.2Workload 10.0 5.6 - 12.3 11.2 7.5 14.8Vocational relevance 3.9 3.1 4.7 4.8 3.5 - 5.6Good teaching 11.4 8.1 13.8 11.8 9.8 14.0Freedom in_ learning_ 11.7 7.4 15.8 11.2 5.0 - 13.2Openness Co students 8.5 5.9 13.5 7.7 4.2 9.8Social climate 9;0 6;9 - 13:6 9:2 6.9 - 10:3

(Continued)

241

APPENDIX

T,hic A6 MEANS 01, SUB CALEB AND LANCES OP DEPARTMENTAL MEANSCORES; BY DISCIPLINE (continued)

PSYCHOLOGY ECONOMICS

Subscale Mean Range Mean Range

.'Deep approach 10.8 9;9 12.4 10.2 8.4 12.1

Relating ideas 10.9 10.1 - 12.0 10.1 8.9 - 11.8

Use of evidence 9.6 8.5 11.0 9.4 8.7 - 10.4

Entrinsic motivation 9.3 7.3 - 10.5 7:0 4.9 9.6

Surface approach 12.8 11.7 14.1 13.8 12.8 15.0

Syllabus-boundness 7.7 6.4 8.6 8.8 7.5 9.5

E:ear of failure 5.9 4.8 - 7.0 6.0 4.6 - 7;5

Extrinsic motivation _4.5 2.8 5.6 7.9 5.1 9.4

Strategic approach 10.2 8.8 - 11:2 10.3 9;5 - 10.8

Disorganized studymethods

9.9 8.7 13.0 9.4 8.1 11.0

Negative attitudes 5.3 4.2 8.6 5.6 4:3 6.7

Achievement motivation 8.8 7.3 - 9.9 10.0 9.2 - 11.0

Comprehension learning 9:0 7.9 - 7:7 6;2 9.2

Globetrotting 8.2 7.4 9.3 7.8 6.9 - 8.5

Oneration learning 9.2 8.2 10.2 10.8 10.1 12.0

Improvidence 7.4 6.2 8.7 8;4 7:6 9.0

Formal teaching methods 6.7 3.8 9.1 6.7 5.5 - 7.8

Clear goals and standards 8.6 5.6 11.9 11.0 8.4 12.7

Workload 9.0 5.3 - 12.6 9.0 5.6 - 13.5

Vocational relevance 6.5 4.7 _8.4 8.2 6.2 9.0

Good teaching 11.8 9.2 14.0 11.8 8:0 - 14.1

Freedom in learning 9.7 7.9 - 12.6 10.4 7.4 - 12.6

Openness to students 9:9 7.4 - 12.8 8.7 6.2 - 11.8

Social climate 11.5 10.2 13.5 9.9 7.8 - 12:0

(Continued)

242

APPENDIX

Table A6 MEANS OF SUBSCALES AND RANGES OF DEPARTMENTAL MEANSCORES; BY DISCPUNE (continued)

PHYSICS ENGINEERING

Subscalo Mean Range Mcan Range

Deep approach 10.1 8.5 - 11.9 10.4 8.4 12.0Relating ideas 9.3 8.2 - 10.9 9.6 8;2 - 11.8Use of evidence 9;8 8;6 - 10.3 9.9 9.0 - 11.0Intrinsic motivation 8.8 7.9 - 9.9 7.3 5.3 - 10.1Surface, approach 13.2 10;9 - 14;7 13;2 10.8 - 16;1Syllabus-boundnes3 8.6 7.6 - 9.9 9.2 8.5 - 10.1Fear of failure 5.5 4.9 - 6.2 6.2 5.0 - _7;4Extrinsic motivation 5;7 4;0 - 8;6 8.0 6:5 - 10.0Strategic approach 10.6 9.2 11.5 10.5 8.5 - 11.5Disorganized studymethods

9.6 8.1 - 10:9 9.8 8.0 - 11;7

Negative attitudes 5.8 4.6 - 6.9 5.4 4.5 - _6:9Achievement motivation 9;8 8.5 - 11.5 10.7 9;4 - 11:4Comprehension learning 8.2 6.3 9.9 8.0 6.4 - 10.3Globetrotting 7.4 6.3 - _8:2 7.5 6;6 - 8;6Operation learning . 10;1 9.2 11.8 11.1 9.7 - 12.8Improvidence 7.4 4.9 8.4 7.8 6.7 - 9.3

Porooption:1 of ,....,o:tm.;2:;

Formal teaching methods 12;0 9;6 - 13.5 12.1 10:0 - 16.2Clear goals and standards 11.4 10.0 - 13.3 12.2 11.5 - 13.8Workload 9.9 8.4 - 12.1 12;9 5;5 - 14.3Vocational relevance 8.9 5.3 - 12.6 13.4 9.0 - 15.1Good teaching 11.8 10.7 - 12.8 11.4 9.1 13;2Freedom in learning 8;2 6;3 - 11.3 8.1 5.8 11.7Openness to students 9.2 6.4 12.1 8.6 6.7 - 11.1Social climate 11.2 9.0 12;7 11;0 8;3 - 13;9

260 243

INDEX

a,!ademic performance Bieri, J., 61,of students, 176 ff; Biggs;_J.;_37, 38, 40;

a,:ademic progress, 44, 59, 86, 175, 193; 210;18 -190; Biglan; A.; 122, 144,

aL:hievil orientation, Birney, R., 3,4,

_40;48-_,3; Bowden, J., 212,Allman, J., 55, Brennan; J.i 113; 118;Aliport, G G5, Brew, A., 207;Amir, V., 113; Broadbent; D., 57,anxiety, 21, Bronowski; 3; _66;

approach Burdick, H., 34;to reading an article; Burt:, C.;__67; 85;

16 -22, 84ff, Butcher, H., 1,to studyino;_29;

33-55, 76-80, 136-149; categories159-165; 168ff; 181-184, - of approaches to193-195; studying; 132; 134,

Approaches to Studying 136ff;Inventory; 35-55; Cattell, R., 67,134-189, Cer'.ra, J;; 115, 176,

Ashby; E.; _8, c nitivetkinson, J., 34, flexibility; 60,asessment styles (see styles)

offects_of; 116; 152; Collis, K., 86,208-213; commitment

At_oistic, 17, 134, - to subject, 169;attitudes to studying; - to teaching, 124,

36-37, 45, 47, comprehensive learning;26, 33-55, 149, 166,

eard; P.; 113; 183;

De.:her, A., 112, context134.1.ker, N,; 118; - academic, 29,

135, 175, 150 -154; 189-190;1iennett; N.4 40, 198-203,

B., 11-1, 112, converger; 60,121, Course Perceptions.

244

INDEX

Questionnaire;121-130, 184-189;

craik,Crutchfield, R., 61;cue - consciousness, 12-13,27,_1341 154,

curriculum- forMal, 116,- hidden, 116;

Dahlgren, L-0., 20-21,do Bono, E.; 61,deep approach, '16-22,

33-55, 136ff,departments

- effects on studying,29, 111ff,

diveroer, 60, 79;Dore, R., 215,Dubin R., It5; 176,

Entwistle, D., 33 _

Entwistle; N.; 2; 7, 33,34, 40, 41, 42, 47;_49,50, 53, 69; 113; 132;155; 160, 181, 185,196,

ethos_- of departments,113-114

examination performance,19,_20,

expectationsof lecturers, 7-8,

extraversion,_33, 40,_67,Eysenck, H.; 33, 40, 67,

68,

fear of failUte, 34, 37,Foam-Warman, H., 118,

176,Feather, N., 34_i

field-independence,_63_;Fransson; A.; 16; 79, 93,

96, 115, 135, 175, 199,Frederick, _.; 212,freedom in learning, 124,

152,

Gaff, U.,113,114, 120,124, 130, 134,

Gamson, Z., 112,Gibbs, G., 50,_55, 195,_207; 208, 210,

Glaser, B.;_14,globetrotting; 26; 27;

41; 47; 183,goals and standards, 124,Godfrey Thomson Unit, 73,

Hancock,", .,_212,Hanley; M., 33, 41, 47,

49, 50, 84,Hajnal, J., 112;Hartnett; R., 115, 176,Heath, R., 11, 26, 27,Heist, P.; 72,Hermans, B., 114,Hobbs; .4 113,HodgS011; V., 196,holisti 22 -28, 40, 80,

149,holistic, 17, 134,_Hounsell, D., 33, 41

47; 49; 50;Hoyle, F., 85,_

Hudson, L., 59; 60; 79;197;

Hughes-Jones;H 176,

iMprovidence, 26, 41, 45,183,

intelledtual development,8-11,

interest- leVel of, 21, 53,173,

introversion, 33; 34, 67,inventory

- _development of;35-43; 50-55,- reliability of, 43,

Jame8;8 ., 212,Jung, C., 66, 73,

Keller plan, 211,King, A., 196,knowledge- background, 153, 174,

Kagan, 62;Ko0h, N.,63,

295

INDEX

Kruusz, M.; 113;Kulik; J., 113, 121, 134,

Laurillard, D.; 115; 132,136; 149, 159,

learningcontexts, 111-114,150-154; 168ff,- experiences Of, 113ffmeaningfuli 49,

- outcome, 84-92;rote, 49,

lecturersinterest In students;

169;- knowledge -of studeutlearning, 121,

Levy; P.;__11;LinOsziy, P.; :,7;

Lockhart; 7: 37,Long, S;, ill;

MacmiliJniC . 212,Maddox, F.., ,Z3;Main; A. 2Ci. 208,Manook; S;; IJSiMarton, F L3-15; 17; _

19, 20, 28. Z9, 30, 35;41; 56; 84; '.12,_93; 94i95, 131, 132, 134 135;136; 123; 176, 186,193; 194; 199.;

Mathias, H 213,meaning, 137ff;meaning orientation, 40;

48, 51, 53;McKeaehie, W., 113; 121,

134,memorization; 137ff,memory

7_1evels of processing,56-60;

Messer, S., 74;Messicki_S.; 62,Miller; C.; 13, 27 35i

117, 134, 154; 155;176;

Morgan, A., 50; 195; --Morison, S., 33, 70, 95,motivation; 33; 53,_

- achievement, 38; 40;

245

47; 184;- extrinsic; 38, 40;

47,_1 '14,-_intrinsic; 38, 45,47; 181;

neuroticism;_68;Newman, J., 116;Nte; N., 36, 88,non-academic orientation;

53,Norman, D;; 57;

O'Conaill; S., 53,operation learning; 26,

33- 55,_149, 166; 183;orientation _to_ stt.dying,

40, 51; 54; 55;195-196i

Pace, C., 111;Parlett; M.; 13, 27, 117,

134; 154; 155;_176;Pascarella, E., 117;Pask, G.; 22-30i 35, 41,

61, 75; 76; 94;114, 149,, 164, 166,196; 205; _

pothclogies of learning,25; 45; 47. 149-150,

Patti-le:1; 116;Payn(=.,__D., 113,Peel, E;; 74;Percy, K., 2; 7; 113,

118, 119iPerry; W.; 8-11; 15; 30,

161,_205,personal experience,

137ff;personality, 65-69,.

72-73Peterson, R;; 111;Phillips; j, 86, 94,PileS; M;; 65;policy implications,

205-206; 214-217,purposelessness, 147;

Raaheim, K , 60, 207,208,

Ramsden, P., 35, 44, 47,

INDEX

117; 119, 125, 132,135, 164,_1794.135,

Ratcliffe; G;; 84;reading

- _academic articles,13-15; 29,

'reasonable adventurer',8; 11;

reasoning- ability, 73-74;_- relativistic, 8-11,

relationshipsbetween ideas; 137ff;with students,_124,

reproducing Jrientation,40, 47, 51; 53;

research methods- __description of; 29-32;43; 45, 70-72,1197121,132-135, 179-181,217-219;

Robertson, I., 25,Roe, _

ROgers; C., 116, 121,Rowntreei D., 175,Rudd; E;; 1;

Sa1j8 i_R.,_12,_16,_17; 19;20; 92; 93; 95, 132,161, -_176, 186, 194,

Schmeck; 11;; 58; 59; 86;94;

Schwab, J.,_112,Scott, B., 22;Serialist, 22-28i 40, 80,

149,SMithers, A., 130,Snow, C. 112,Snyder, B.; 116, 118, 175,social climate, 124, 153,staff development;

211-213;Stern, C., 111,strategic

- approaches to studying,154-159,

strategiesof learning, 22-25,

29, 196-198,Strauss, A., 14,study

- methods, 33, 40, 45,47,-skills, 38, 206-208i212-214,

styles- cognitive, 29, 62-65,74;- learning, 26-28i 29i47, 757!76, 114; 149-150;196-198,- thinking,_59762,,-. writing; 80-83;

subject area differences,112, 114, 115, 130-4-- in leathihg; 165ff,- in studying, 181-184,

Svensson, L;; 14-19; 23;132, 134, 176,

syllabus- bound or -free, 36,39, 45, 181,

TaL rei-, R. , 55,Taveggia,_ T.,_115,_176;Taylor; E;; 50; 195;teaching methods- effectiveness_of;115; 116; 118, 120,169ff, 208-213,

_ - formal; 124; 153;Teevan, R., 34,Terenzini, P.; 1174thematization; 13-14, 27,

161,thinking

- convergent, 59-62,- critical, 118i

_- divergent; 59-62;Thomas, P., 33,Thompsoni_J., 33, 35; '96Thompson,J.D.;112,Tulving, E., 57,

understandinglevels of; 16-184____

unreflectivene8S; 137ff;unrelatedness, 137ff, 147,

van Rossum,E.J., 50,Veblen, T., 116,versatile; 27; 41; 42; 164;

264 247

INDEX

vocational relevance, 124153;

Wankowski, J., 155; 207;208,

Watkins, D., 45; 50; _

Whitehead-, A., 116, 208;Williams; G,_215;Wilson, J., 33-35; 43; 69;

155; 181;Witkin, H., 62-64; 74i_workload, 124, 152, 172;

Yonge, G., 72,

248

CONTENTS

Foreword William G, Perry, Jr,Preface

AcknowledgementsI. Student Learning in Its Context2, Intellectual Development ard

Approaches to StudyingPit? Programme ofReseareli

4. Identifying Distinctive Approachesto Studying

5, Personality and Cognitive Style inStudying

h, Approaches to Reading AcademicArticles

Identifying Students' PerceptionsOf Departments

S. Students' Experiences of LearningQ. Approaches to Learning in Contrasting

DepartmentsLearning and Teaching in Higher

EducationReferencesAppendixIndex

ISBN 0.7099A)921 -7 Croom Helm

ISBN 0 3939-7- i -; 1 :5 Nidtols

266

document resume - eric · 2014-03-30 · ed 244 959. author title spons agency report no pub date...

Documents