Relationship between Students’ Conceptions and Approaches to Study and Learning: A Structural Equation Modeling Analysis

Sheikhshoaie, Mahla; Soltani, Asghar; Motaharinejad, Hossein

doi:10.22034/jiera.2019.156590.1706

Relationship between Students’ Conceptions and Approaches to Study and Learning: A Structural Equation Modeling Analysis

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Mahla Sheikhshoaie ¹

Asghar Soltani ²

Hossein Motaharinejad ³

¹ M.A. in Educational Planning, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman. Kerman, Iran

² Associate Professor, Department of Education, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Kerman, Iran

³ Assistant Professor, Department of Education, shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Kerman, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22034/jiera.2019.156590.1706

Abstract

The present research article aimed to investigate the relationship between components of students’ conceptions and approaches to study and learning. The research method was descriptive-correlational. Statistical population included all the undergraduate and graduate students of Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman and the sample was comprised of 352 students in 2016-17 academic year who were selected through stratified random sampling. Research instrument included Conceptions of Learning Inventory (COLI) questionnaire (adopted from Purdie and Hattie, 2002) and Study Skills Inventory for Students (ASSIST) questionnaire (adopted form Tait et.al, 1998). Validity of the instrument was confirmed through confirmatory factor analysis. Data were analyzed by means of structural equation modeling (SEM) in Lisrel software, version 8.8. The results showed that the proposed model fitted the data and could explain the relationship between the variables in a good manner. Accordingly, the direct effect of the variable “remembering, using and understanding information” on surface and deep approaches to learning, and also the direct effect of “learning as development of social competence” on adopting the deep approach to learning were positive and meaningful. The results suggest that adopting a deep approach to learning provides a better basis for students to adopt a strategic approach. Adopting this approach not only has impacts on students’ learning outcomes, but also can provide the context and conditions for adopting a strategic approach, which is one of the most important learning approaches among learners.

Keywords

Conception of learning

Approach to learning

Deep approach

strategic approach

رضایی، ا. (1395). رابطه باورهای معرفت شناختی، هیجان‏های تحصیلی و خودکارآمدی با رویکردهای یادگیری سطحی و عمیق دانشجویان. دوفصلنامه راهبردهای شناختی در یادگیری، 4(6)، 81 -56.

سلطانی، ا. (1397). بررسی روابط ساختاری میان پنداشت‌ها و رویکردهای یادگیری علوم در دانش‌آموزان متوسطه. اندیشه‌های نوین تربیتی، 14(3)، 26-1.

سیف، ع. (1395). روان‌شناسی پرورشی نوین، روان‌شناسی یادگیری و آموزش. تهران: دوران.

معنوی‌پور، د.، حسنی، ف. و رفیعی، پ. (1392). رابطه باورهای معرفت شناختی و خودکارآمدی تحصیلی با رویکردهای یادگیری دانش‌آموزان دختر دبیرستانی. تحقیقات روان‌شناختی، 5(17)، 12-1.

References

Baeten, M., Dochy, F., & Struyven, K. (2013). Enhancing students’ approaches to learning: the added value of gradually implementing case-based learning. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28, 315-336.

Biggs, J. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.

Bluic, A.-M., Ellis, R., Goodyear, P., & Piggott, L. (2010). Learning through face-to-face and online discussions: Associations between students’ conceptions, approaches and academic performance in political science. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41, 512-524.

Cano, F., & Justicia, F. (1994). Learning strategies, styles and approaches: An analysis of their interrelationships. Higher Education, 27, 239-260.

Dolmans, D. H. J. M., Loyens, S. M. M., Marcq, H., & Gijbel, D. (2016). Deep and surface learning in problembased learning: a review of the literature. Advances in Health Science Education, 21, 1087–1112.

Entwistle, N., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. London: Croom Helm.

Klatter, E. B., Lodewijks, H. G. L. C., & Aarnoutse, C. A. J. (2001). Learning conceptions of young students in the final year of primary education. Learning and Instruction, 11, 485-516.

Kyndt, E., Cascallar, E., & Dochy, F. (2012). Individual differences in working memory capacity and attention, and their relationship with students’ approaches to learning. Higher Education, 64, 285-297.

Lee, M.-H., Johanson, R. E., & Tsai, C.-C. (2008). Exploring Taiwanese high school students’ conceptions of and approaches to learning science through a structural equation modeling analysis. Science Education, 92, 191-2008.

Lin, C.-L., Tsai, C.-C., & Liang, J.-C. (2012). An investigation of two profiles within conceptions of learning science: an examination of confirmatory factor analysis. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 27, 499-521.

Lindblom-Ylänne, S., Parpala, A., & Postareff, L. (2018). What constitutes the surface approach to learning in the light of new empirical evidence? Studies in Higher Education, doi: 10.1080/03075079.2018.1482267

Manavi-pour, D., Hassani, F., & Rafiei, P. (1392). The relationship between epistemological beliefs and academic self-efficacy with learning approaches of high school female students. Psychological Research, 5 (17), 12-1. [In Persian].

Marton, F. (1983). Beyond individual differences. Educational Psychology, 3, 289–303.

Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1984). Approaches to learning. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell, & N. Entwistle (Eds.), The experience of learning (pp. 39–58). Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.

Marton, F., Dall’Alba, G., & Beaty, E. (1993). Conceptions of learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 19, 277 – 299.

Monroy, F., & González-Geraldo, J. L. (2017): Measuring learning: discrepancies between conceptions of and approaches to learning, Educational Studies, doi: 10.1080/03055698.2017.1345677

Ohrnstedt, M., & Lindforse, P. (2016). Students’ adoption of course-specific approaches to learning in two parallel courses. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 31, 209-223.

Parpala, A., Lindblom-Ylänne, S., Komulainen, E., & Entwistle, N. (2013). Assessing students’ experiences of teaching–learning environments and approaches to learning: Validation of a questionnaire in different countries and varying contexts. Learning environments Research, 16, 201-215.

Purdie, N., & Hattie, J. (2002). Assessing students' conceptions of learning. Australian Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, 2, 17−32.

Rezai, A. (2006). The relationship between epistemological beliefs, academic emotions, and self-efficacy with student's surface and deep learning approaches. Journal of Cognitive Strategies in Learning, 4 (6), 81-56. [In Persian].

Richardson, J. T. E. (2015). Approaches to learning or levels of processing: what did Marton and Säljö (1976a) really say? The legacy of the work of the Göteborg group in the 1970s. Interchange, 46, 239–269.

Robbers, E., Donche, V., De Maeyer, S., & Van Petegem, P. (2017): A longitudinal study of learning conceptions on the transition between primary and secondary education, Research Papers in Education, doi: 10.1080/02671522.2017. 1329337

Robbers, E., Van Petegem, P. Donche, V., & De Maeyer, S. (2015). Predictive validity of the learning conception questionnaire in primary education. International Journal of Educational Research, 74, 61-69.

Säljö, R. (1979). Learning in the learner’s perspective: Some commonsense conceptions. Gothenburg, Sweden: Institute of Education, University of Gothenburg.

Seif, A. (2016). Modern educational psychology: The psychology of learning and education. Tehran: Doran Publishing. [In Persian].

Soltani, A. (2018). Exploring structural relations between conceptions and approaches to learning science among secondary students. Quarterly Journal of New Thoughts on Education, 14 (3), 1–26. [In Persian].

Soltani, A. (2018). Influence of Motivating Science Class, Family, and Peer Models on Students’ Approaches to Learning Science: A Structural Equation Modeling Analysis. Research in Science Education. DOI: 10.1007/s11165-018-9748-1

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistic (6th Ed.). Boston: Pearson / Allyn & Bacon.

Tait, H., Entwistle, N. J., & McCune, V. (1998). ASSIST: A reconceptualization of the approaches to study inventory. In C. Rust (Ed.), Improving student learning (pp. 262−270). The Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development, Oxford Brookes University.

Tsai, C.-C. (2009). Conceptions of learning versus conceptions of web-based learning: The differences revealed by college students, Computers & Education, 53, 1092-1103.

Zhu, C., Valcke, M., & Schellens, T. (2008). A cross-cultural study of Chinese and Flemish university students: Do they differ in learning conceptions and approaches to learning? Learning and Individual Differences, 18,120-127.