ARTICLE INFO

Article Type

Descriptive & Survey Study

Authors

Mehdinezhad   V. (*)
Esmaeeli   R. (1)






(*) Educational Planning & Administration Department, Education & Psychology Faculty, University of Sistan and Baluchestan, Zahedan, Iran
(1) Education Department, Education and Psychology Faculty, University of Sistan and Baluchestan, Zahedan, Iran

Correspondence

Address: Department of Educational Planning and Administration, Faculty of Education and Psychology, University Blvd., University of Sistan and Baluchestan, Zahedan, Iran. P.O. Box: 98155-987
Phone: +985431132797
Fax: +985433433401
valmeh@ped.usb.ac.ir

Article History

Received:  April  25, 2015
Accepted:  June 1, 2015
ePublished:  June 6, 2015

BRIEF TEXT


… [1-26] Superficial learning methods and deep learning methods are related to low and high understandings of the phenomena [5, 13, 27-29]. … [30-32]

The students’ understanding and paraphrase of educational environments directly affect their learning attitudes leading to affect the learning results [33]. More and more undergraduate students are using the superficial learning attitude, while they are less using the deep method in their learning [7, 34].

The aim of this study was to assess superficial, strategic, and deep learning attitudes in the students.

This is a survey-descriptive study.

The students of Zahedan University of Medical Sciences were studied in 2012-13.

380 students were selected, using Stratified Sampling method proportion to size based on the students’ gender and simple random method. The sample size was determined by Krejcie and Morgan Table [35].

Data was collected, using a questionnaire derived from Study Attitudes and Skills Questionnaire [36]. Short version of the questionnaire includes 69 items in three parts including a definition for learning (6 items), learning attitudes (52 items), and preferences for different types of courses and teachings (9 items) scored with 5-score Likert’s Scale. Using Test-Retest method, the researchers found out 46 items suitable to the Iranian students’ situations. Totally, there were 11 items of superficial learning (items 1 to 11), 21 items of deep learning (items 12 to 25), and 14 items of strategic learning (items 26 to 46). Using Cronbach’s test, the reliabilities of the questionnaire for superficial, deep, and strategic attitudes and for the whole questionnaire were computed 0.62, 0.78, 0.81, and 0.87, respectively. Data was analyzed, using SPSS 20 software. One-variable T test was used to assess the students’ situation in the utilization of the learning approaches. Independent T test was used to assess the difference in the utilization of the type of the selected approach for the students’ learning based on the gender. Analysis of Variance and Benferroni Post-hoc tests were used to assess the mentioned difference based on age.

From 380 students, 152 students (40.0%) and 228 students (60.0%) were male and female, respectively. The ages of 84 students (22.1%), 80 students (21.1%), 95 persons (25.0%), and 121 persons (31.8%) were between 19 and 20, 21 and 22, 23 and 24, and 25 and more, respectively. The mean scores of the students for strategic (52.59±10.02) and superficial (35.13±6.71) approaches were higher than the assumed mean scores (42 and 33). The mean score of deep attitude (56.39±10.07) was lower than the assumed mean score (63). There were significant differences between the computed and assumed mean scores in all the three attitudes. The students used strategic and superficial attitudes for high learning levels, and they used deep attitude for moderate learning. In other words, 179 students (47.1%) and 133 students (35.0%) used strategic and superficial attitudes, respectively. And only 68 students (17.9%) used deep attitude. Despite the fact that both female and male students used superficial attitude at a relatively high level, there was no significant difference between the groups. There was a significant difference between the mean scores of female and male students in deep and strategic attitudes, and female students used both deep and strategic attitudes more than male students. There was a significant difference in the learning attitudes between age groups, and the difference was mostly between two age groups including 21-22years and 25years and more. The most utilization of superficial learning attitude was in the 21-22years students, and the lowest utilization was in students aged as 25 years old and more. In strategic attitude, there was no difference between age groups, and all the age groups used the learning attitude approximately equal and in a high level (Table 1).

Most of the students (47%) used strategic attitude. 35% of the students used superficial attitude. 18% of the students used deep attitude. The results are consistent with the results of other studies [22, 26] showing that the most prevalent learning method of the nursing students is strategic attitude. Most of the students prefer strategic attitude than superficial attitude [22, 26]. The result is consistent with the present results. The female students used three attitudes more than the male students. There is a significant difference between female and male students in the learning method [24]. The result is consistent with the present results. The most utilization of the superficial learning was in 21-22 years old students, and the least utilization was in students aged 25 years old and more. The undergraduate students mostly used strategic and superficial attitudes, and the graduate students mostly used deep attitude. The results are consistent with the results of other studies [7, 34, 37], which show that most of the undergraduate students, compared to the graduate students, use superficial attitude and less use the deep attitude.

Organization of knowledge and analysis of information by the students should be emphasized by the teachers. Training workshops about the process-oriented teaching methods should be conducted for the teachers.

The use of a closed-response questionnaire was of the limitations for the present study.

More than 80% of the students use strategic and superficial attitudes in learning and study, which are methods depending on memory and are result-oriented. There is less interest in the deep attitude despite the fact that it is an attitude that can lead to a deep and lasting learning process and can make the fixed matters applicable.

All the participants are appreciated.

Non-declared

Non-declared

The study was not funded by any legal or real person.

TABLES and CHARTS

Show attach file


CITIATION LINKS

[1]Newble DI, Clarke RM. The approaches to learning of students in a traditional and in an innovative problem-based medical school. Med Educ. 1986;20(4):267-73.
[2]Cano F. Consonance and dissonance in students' learning experience. Learn Instruction, 2005;15(3):201-23.
[3]Nejat N, Kouhestani HR, Rezaei K. Effect of concept mapping on approach to learning among nursing students. Hayat. 2011;17(2):22-31. [Persian]
[4]Parsa A, Saketi P. Simple and multiple class relationship building and how the implementation of the curriculum with students’ learning approaches in Shiraz University. J Educ Psychol. 2005;3(4):147-84. [Persian]
[5]Marton F, Saljo R. On qualitative differences in learning: I-outcome and process. Br J Educ Psychol. 1976;46(1):4-11.
[6]Van Rossum EJ, Schenk SM. The relationship between learning conception, study strategy and learning outcome. British J Educ Psychol. 1984;54(1):73-83.
[7]Biggs JB. Student approaches to learning and studying. Research monograph. Melbourne, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research; 1987.
[8]Biggs JB. Approaches to the enhancement of tertiary teaching. Higher Educ Res Dev. 1989;8(1):7-25.
[9]Biggs J. What do inventories of students' learning processes really measure? A theoretical review and clarification. Br J Educ Psychol. 1993;63(Pt 1):3-19.
[10]Ramsden P. Learning to teach in higher education. London: Rutledge; 2003.
[11]Entwistle NJ, Entwistle A. Contrasting forms of understanding for degree examinations: The student experience and its implications. Higher Educ. 1991;22(3):205-27.
[12]Sadler Smith E, Tsang F. A comparative study of approaches to studying in Hong Kong and the United Kingdom. Br J Educ Psychol. 1998;68(1):81-93.
[13]Trigwell K, Prosser M. Improving the quality of student learning: The influence of learning context and student approaches to learning on learning outcomes. Higher Educ. 1991;22(3):251-66.
[14]Trigwell K, Prosser M, Waterhouse F. Relations between teachers’ approaches to teaching and students’ approaches to learning. Higher Educ. 1999;37(1):57-70.
[15]Drew PY, Watkins D. Affective variables, learning approaches and academic achievement: A causal modeling investigation with Hong Kong Chinese tertiary students. Br J Educ Psychol. 1998;68(2):173-88.
[16]Biggs JB. Individual and group differences in study processes. Br J Educ Psychol. 1978;48(3):266-79.
[17]Entwistle N, Tait H. Approaches to studying and perceptions of the learning environment across discipline. New Dir Teach Learn. 1995;64(4):93-103.
[18]Lublin J. Deep, surface and strategic approaches to learning. Centre for Teaching and Learning; 2003.
[19]Trigwell K, Prosser M. Development and use of the approaches to teaching inventory. J Educ Psychol Review. 2004;16(4):409-24.
[20]Biggs J. Teaching for quality learning at university. 4th edition. New York: Open University Press; 2011.
[21]Entwistle N, Entwistle NJ. Styles of Learning and teaching: An integrated outline of educational psychology for students, teachers, and lecturers. David Fulton; 1981.
[22]Shakurnia A, Alijani H, Elhampour H, Afra M. Nursing and midwifery students’ approaches to study and learning in AJUMS. Nurs Res. 2013;7(26):57-68. [Persian]
[23]Fathabadi J, Seif A. Effect of different methods of measurement approaches and strategies to prepare to test the progress of students with high and low educational progress.J Educ Psychol. 2007;14(4):21-46. [Persian]
[24]Shokri O, Kadivar P, Farzad V, Daneshpour Z. The relationship between thinking styles and learning approaches of students' progress. Cogn Sci News. 2006;8(2):44-52. [Persian]
[25]Shokri O, Kadivar P, Farzad V, Sangari A. Role of personality traits and learning approaches on academic achievement of University Students. Psychol Res. 2007;9(3-4):65-84. [Persian]
[26]Seif A, Fathabadi J. Different approaches to lesson study and the relationship of study skills with academic achievement, gender and educational experience of university students. 2009;1(33):29-41. [Persian]
[27]Crawford K, Gordon S, Nicholas J, Prosser M. Qualitatively different experiences of learning mathematics at university. Learn Instructor. 1998;8(5):455-68.
[28]Hazel E, Prosser M, Trigwell K. Variation in learning orchestration in university biology courses. Int J Sci Educ. 2002;24(7):737-51.
[29]Cope C. Educationally critical characteristics of deep approaches to learning about the concept of an information system. J Info Technol Educ. 2003;2(4):415-27.
[30]Reid WA, Duvall E, Evans P. Relationship between assessment results and approaches to learning and studying in Year Two medical students. Med Educ. 2007;41(8):754-62.
[31]Chamorro Premuzic T, Furnham A, Lewis M. Personality and approaches to learning predict preference for different teaching methods. Learn Individual Differ. 2007;17(3):241-52.
[32]Chamorro Premuzic T, Furnham A. Personality, intelligence and approaches to learning as predictors of academic performance. Personality Individual Differ. 2008;44(7):1596-603.
[33]Gijbels D, Van De Watering G, Dochy F, Van Den Bossche P. The relationship between students’ approaches to learning and the assessment of learning outcomes. Eur J Psychol Educ. 2005;20(4):327-41.
[34]Bradford K. Deep and surface approaches to learning strategic approach to study in higher education, Based on Phenomenghraphic Research, 2007.
[35]Krejcie RV, Morgan DW. Determining sample size for research activities. Educ Psychol Meas. 1970;30:607-8.
[36]Tait H, Entwistle NJ, Mc Cune V. ASSIST: a re-conceptualization of the Approaches to Studying Inventory. In: Rust C, editor. Improving students as learners (Improving student learning). Oxford: Oxford Brookes University Oxford Centre for Staff; 1998. pp. 262-71.
[37]Gow L, Kember D. Does higher education promote independent learning?. Higher Educ. 1990;19(3):307-22.