INFLUENCES ON APPROACHES TO LEARNING

INFLUENCES ON APPROACHES TO LEARNING

A student’s learning approach and their conceptions of learning may vary from task to task and from teacher to teacher (Entwistle, 1987). Other factors that may influence a student’s learning approach include gender, locus of control and self‐ esteem. Indeed, there is a range of factors that have an effect on a student’s approaches to learning and these influences are interrelated. Nevertheless in this review, the scope of discussion is limited to several personal and environmental influences on approaches to learning. While these influences of learning are interrelated, they are discussed under separate headings for clarity purposes in this section.

Personal influences on experiences of learning

How a student approaches a learning task is argued to depend on what learning means to him or her, that is, his or her conception of learning. Extensive studies How a student approaches a learning task is argued to depend on what learning means to him or her, that is, his or her conception of learning. Extensive studies

Apart from the influence of conceptions of learning, students’ approaches to learning can be delimited by other factors. Biggs (1993) identified two crucial internal factors that can influence a student’s choice of learning approach, namely, ‘strategy’ and ‘motives’ (p. 316). The term motives, is more commonly used in psychology than in phenomenography. In the literature, researchers such as Kember (1996), and Reid, Wood, Smith and Petocz (2005), use the term intention to describe the students’ motives in adopting a particular approach to learning (Entwistle, 1987, p. 16). However, in a study that examines how students in higher education vary in their engagement with the content and context of learning, both motives and intentions were used to describe different meanings (Meyer, 1998). Meyer (1998) asserts that the term intention answers the following question: “What are you trying to do?” and suggests that students’ actions or approaches to learning are dependent on their aims or goals of learning. For instance, if they intend to make personal sense of the information that they acquire in class, then they are Apart from the influence of conceptions of learning, students’ approaches to learning can be delimited by other factors. Biggs (1993) identified two crucial internal factors that can influence a student’s choice of learning approach, namely, ‘strategy’ and ‘motives’ (p. 316). The term motives, is more commonly used in psychology than in phenomenography. In the literature, researchers such as Kember (1996), and Reid, Wood, Smith and Petocz (2005), use the term intention to describe the students’ motives in adopting a particular approach to learning (Entwistle, 1987, p. 16). However, in a study that examines how students in higher education vary in their engagement with the content and context of learning, both motives and intentions were used to describe different meanings (Meyer, 1998). Meyer (1998) asserts that the term intention answers the following question: “What are you trying to do?” and suggests that students’ actions or approaches to learning are dependent on their aims or goals of learning. For instance, if they intend to make personal sense of the information that they acquire in class, then they are

This section has explained that the ways in which students experience learning, that is, their conceptions of learning and their learning intentions are related to the ways in which they approach learning tasks. While there is a close relationship between students’ conceptions of learning and their approaches to learning, Burnett, Pillay and Dart (2003) argue that the relationship is not always straightforward. The relationship between students’ conceptions of learning and their approaches to learning are also dependent on the environmental influences such as the educational context. An educational context, in this review, includes aspects such as: teaching approaches, learning environments, the curriculum and assessment. The extent to which these factors influence students’ conceptions of learning and approaches to learning is explored in the following section.

Environmental influences on experiences of learning

Educational contexts have been found to influence the ways in which students experience learning including their approaches to learning (Eklund‐Myrskog, 1998; Kelly, 2000; van Rossum, Deijkers & Hammers, 1985; Zhu, Valcke & Schellens, 2008).

In the Brunei study, educational context refers to teaching approaches, learning environments, curricula and assessment. These aspects are interrelated and are discussed in turn to explore their influence on students’ conceptions of learning, approaches to learning and learning outcomes.

Teaching approaches The different approaches to teaching are part of a complex classroom circumstance

that provides a variety of learning environments for students (Hounsell, 1997; Knapper, 1995; Newble & Entwistle, 1986; Ramsden, 1997). For example, students in a classroom where the teacher uses a traditional and teacher‐centred approach to teaching may adopt a surface approach to learning and hold quantitative conceptions of learning because they are not required to develop a deeper understanding of the learning material. In the teacher‐centred approach, students are typically engaged in rote learning and the teacher plays an active role in transmitting information to the students (Burnett et al., 2003). Meaningful learning or deep approaches to learning are often associated with learning environments that encourage students to be active and constructive (Shuell, 1986, 1990). In a constructivist learning environment, the roles that teachers play include facilitator, guide, coach, sense‐maker and advisor, providing opportunities for students to engage in activities such as exploring and discovering (Perkins, 1999).

Students may interpret their teacher’s instructions according to their understandings of what learning means to them. These interpretations have been found to have an effect on the ways in which they approach learning tasks, which in turn affects their learning outcomes (Klatter, Lodewijks & Aarnoutse, 2001). Hence, there is a logical relationship between the students’ conceptions of learning, their approaches to learning and the learning outcomes. Figure 4 (adapted from Klatter et al., 2001, p. 486) illustrates the mediating role that learning conceptions and learning activities (learning approaches) play in relation to students’ learning outcomes. Klatter et al.’s study demonstrates the significance of investigating learning conceptions held by students by highlighting the mediating role that it plays in influencing approaches to learning and learning outcomes.

Learning task

Interpretation Executing

Learning

and task based on

learning outcomes

instruction learning activities conceptions

Figure 4. The mediating role of learning conceptions

Learning environments Qualitative conceptions and deep approach to learning have long been

acknowledged as necessary if high quality learning outcomes or meaningful learning are to be achieved (Ausubel, 1968; Biggs, 1979; Weinstein, Underwood, Wicker & Cubberly, 1979). However, Fok and Watkins (2007) note that the kind of learning environments or educational context that are most likely to encourage deep

approach have changed over the last 20 years. In the words of Burnett et al. (2003), ‘a qualitative view of learning could be seen as a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for a deep learning approach to be adopted that will result in improved learning outcomes’ (p. 62). Watkins (2001) found common characteristics of learning environments that are associated with deep approaches include ‘teacher involvement, teacher support, student collaboration, student enjoyment, and an achievement ‐orientation in schools’ (in Fok & Watkins, 2007, p. 1). These characteristics were derived from investigations carried out in schools in Australia, Egypt, Hong Kong, Nigeria and the USA (Abd‐Elsamie, 1998; Haertel, Walberg & Haertel, 1981; Ramsden, Martin & Bowden, 1989; Watkins & Akande, 1993; Wong & Watkins, 1996).

Similar to Watkins’s (2001) findings, an earlier study with university students revealed that a lecturer who gives adequate and helpful feedback; makes clear the objectives, the assessment criteria and generally what is expected of students; demonstrates the relevance of the course and attempts to make it interesting; creates opportunities for questions and time for consultations; is good at explaining things; makes an effort to understand students’ difficulties; and gives students the opportunity to decide what and how they learn’ tend to encourage deep approaches to learning and improved learning outcomes (Trigwell & Prosser, 1991, p. 263).

The design of curriculum can also influence the experience of learning. For instance, innovative and self‐directed learning curriculum such as Problem‐Based Learning (PBL) can promote a deep approach to learning (Finucane et al., 1998). Previous studies comparing PBL and traditional, subject‐based curriculum found that students who followed problem‐based curriculum were more likely to adopt a deep approach to learning and they were less likely to adopt a surface approach to learning (Newble & Clarke, 1986; Sadlo & Richardson, 2003).

In other studies, however, interventions aimed at encouraging deep approaches to learning have proved to be largely ineffective (Gibbs, 1992; Hambleton, Foster & Richardson, 1998; Kember, Charlesworth, Davies, McKay & Stott, 1997; Richardson, 2005). One of the reasons for ineffective results in inducing desirable approaches to learning was postulated to be the students’ perceptions of their academic environment (Richardson, 2005). On a similar note, Ramsden (1988) asserted that the students’ conceptions of learning play a significant role in influencing the ways in which they approach learning tasks. For example, in Marton and Säljö’s (1984) study, some students were found using surface approaches even though deep approaches were called for. In a quantitative study carried out by Entwistle and Peterson (2004), university students using surface approaches described their preferred learning contexts as those providing a direct link between the materials taught and fact‐based assessment procedures. These students did not appreciate learning contexts that were designed to focus on understanding. Entwistle and Peterson (2004) argue that allowing students to maintain surface approaches In other studies, however, interventions aimed at encouraging deep approaches to learning have proved to be largely ineffective (Gibbs, 1992; Hambleton, Foster & Richardson, 1998; Kember, Charlesworth, Davies, McKay & Stott, 1997; Richardson, 2005). One of the reasons for ineffective results in inducing desirable approaches to learning was postulated to be the students’ perceptions of their academic environment (Richardson, 2005). On a similar note, Ramsden (1988) asserted that the students’ conceptions of learning play a significant role in influencing the ways in which they approach learning tasks. For example, in Marton and Säljö’s (1984) study, some students were found using surface approaches even though deep approaches were called for. In a quantitative study carried out by Entwistle and Peterson (2004), university students using surface approaches described their preferred learning contexts as those providing a direct link between the materials taught and fact‐based assessment procedures. These students did not appreciate learning contexts that were designed to focus on understanding. Entwistle and Peterson (2004) argue that allowing students to maintain surface approaches

Another environmental influence on the experience of learning relates to assessment. Empirical research over the last three decades notes assessment as having a critical impact on students’ approaches to learning. Ramsden (2003), for example, asserts that ‘the methods we use to assess students are one of the most critical of all influences on their learning’ (p. 67). Gibbs (1999) in an earlier study claims that assessment is ‘the most powerful lever teachers have to influence the way students respond to courses and behave as learners’ (p. 41). Ramsden (2003) suggests that from the students’ perspective ‘assessment always defined actual curriculum’ (p. 182) and thereby, directly influencing their approaches to learning. In other words, students use assessment to make strategic decisions about learning and these decisions often determine whether they take a surface or deep approach to learning (Brown & Knight, 1994; Gibbs, 1999). Indeed, investigations of learning approaches using Entwistle and Ramsden’s (1983) Approaches to Studying Inventory (ASI) and Biggs’s (1987) Study Process Questionnaire (SPQ) among university students revealed that a student may adopt different approaches to learning, depending on what is required in different course unit (Eley, 1992) and the nature of assessment (Scouller, 1998). In particular, the achieving or a strategic approach to learning is influenced by assessment (Entwistle & Entwistle, 2003; Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983). In a study that examined the relationship between students’

academic achievement and their conceptions of learning, students who took surface or deep approaches were found to adopt the strategic or achieving approach, depending on the type of task or assessment involved (McLean, 2001). A similar finding was reported by Gijbels, Segers and Struf (2008), in which students (whether they are surface or deep learners) were found to adopt the strategic approach if they found a learning task to be irrelevant, particularly when there is a time constraint (McLean, 2001; Newble & Entwistle, 1986). In addition to irrelevant learning tasks and time constraint, inappropriate assessment procedures were found to have a negative effect on student motivation and learning (McLean, 2001; Fransson, 1977; Newble & Entwistle, 1986). Chambers (1992) noted that,

If students do not have enough time to do things [to think, understand the major concepts; broaden their frame of reference and construct frameworks of learning], if they are always driven by the demands of the curriculum, we leave them with little choice but to skim along the “surface” of things. (p. 145)

The impact that environmental influences have on the ways in which students experience learning ‘suggest that one could bring about desirable approaches to studying by appropriate course design, appropriate teaching methods, or appropriate forms of assessment’ (Richardson, 2005, p. 674). Lambert (2001) proposed that educators create learning contexts that provide challenges for students to enhance key skills such as the abilities to develop and expand their own learning strategies in order to make them useful and effective.

Gravoso, Pasa and Mori (2002) noted that in the literature, it is generally agreed that students’ prior learning experiences, conceptions of learning, and approaches to learning underpin the quality of their learning outcomes. In an earlier phenomenographic study of students’ conceptions of price, Dahlgren and Marton (1978) found that, students who used deep approaches had deeper understanding of price. Similar findings were found in a study investigating students’ conceptions of mathematics (Doverborg & Pramling, 1996). In the study, an association was revealed between fragmented conceptions of mathematics and surface approaches, while a cohesive conception of mathematics was found to relate closely with deep approaches (Crawford, Gordon, Nichols & Prosser, 1998). Rote learning or surface approaches are often linked to quantitative conceptions of learning and are known to lead to poor learning outcomes (Watkins, 2000). Deep approaches, on the contrary, are linked to qualitative conceptions and are often associated with meaningful learning.