Study Approaches of Life Science Students Using the Revised Two-Factor Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F)

[EN] Students' approaches to learning can vary between students of different ages, genders, years, degrees, or cultural contexts. The aim of this study was to assess the approaches to learning of different students of life science degrees. The Revised Two-Factor Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F) has been used to assess the approaches to learning of 505 students of thirteen different subjects of four different degrees at Universitat Politecnica de Valencia in order to study the factors that influence their approaches. Results show a higher deep approach of the students. Differences were observed between subjects and gender, not related to level (bachelor or master) or year. The item reliability analysis showed a high consistency for the main scales, but not for the secondary scales of the R-SPQ-2F questionnaire. High correlation between the deep and surface scales were observed. These data can provide more information to the teachers, which may help them to develop strategies focused on promoting a deeper approach to learning for the students, more adapted to their subject, level, and year.This research was partially funded by innovation educative projects (PIME/2017/A/016/A and PIME/19-20/168) by Vice-Rectorate for Studies, Quality and Accreditation of Universitat Politecnica de Valencia (UPV, Valencia, Spain).Leiva-Brondo, M.; Cebolla Cornejo, J.; Peiró Barber, RM.; Andrés-Colás, N.; Esteras Gómez, C.; Ferriol Molina, M.; Merle Farinós, HB.... (2020). Study Approaches of Life Science Students Using the Revised Two-Factor Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F). Education Sciences. 10(7):1-18. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10070173S118107Sinatra, G. M., Heddy, B. C., & Lombardi, D. (2015). The Challenges of Defining and Measuring Student Engagement in Science. Educational Psychologist, 50(1), 1-13. doi:10.1080/00461520.2014.1002924Jeong, J. S., González-Gómez, D., Conde-Núñez, M. C., & Gallego-Picó, A. (2019). EXAMINATION OF STUDENTS’ ENGAGEMENT WITH R-SPQ-2F OF LEARNING APPROACH IN FLIPPED SUSTAINABLE SCIENCE COURSE. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 18(6), 880-891. doi:10.33225/jbse/19.18.880Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School Engagement: Potential of the Concept, State of the Evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109. doi:10.3102/00346543074001059Reeve, J. (2013). How students create motivationally supportive learning environments for themselves: The concept of agentic engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 579-595. doi:10.1037/a0032690Montenegro, A. (2017). Understanding the Concept of Agentic Engagement. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 19(1), 117. doi:10.14483/calj.v19n1.10472QS Enrolment Solutions https://www.internationalstudentsurvey.com/international-student-survey-2017/Biggs, J., Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. P. (2001). The revised two-factor Study Process Questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(1), 133-149. doi:10.1348/000709901158433MARTON, F., & SÄLJÖ, R. (1976). ON QUALITATIVE DIFFERENCES IN LEARNING: I-OUTCOME AND PROCESS*. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46(1), 4-11. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1976.tb02980.xMARTON, F., & SÄALJÖ, R. (1976). ON QUALITATIVE DIFFERENCES IN LEARNING-II OUTCOME AS A FUNCTION OF THE LEARNER’S CONCEPTION OF THE TASK. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46(2), 115-127. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1976.tb02304.xGrabinger, R. S., & Dunlap, J. C. (2011). Rich environments for active learning: a definition. Research in Learning Technology, 3(2). doi:10.3402/rlt.v3i2.9606Zimmerman, B. J. (1986). Becoming a self-regulated learner: Which are the key subprocesses? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11(4), 307-313. doi:10.1016/0361-476x(86)90027-5BIGGS, J. B. (1978). INDIVIDUAL AND GROUP DIFFERENCES IN STUDY PROCESSES. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 48(3), 266-279. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1978.tb03013.xSchmeck, R. R., Ribich, F., & Ramanaiah, N. (1977). Development of a Self-Report Inventory for Assessing Individual Differences in Learning Processes. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1(3), 413-431. doi:10.1177/014662167700100310Booth, P., Luckett, P., & Mladenovic, R. (1999). The quality of learning in accounting education: the impact of approaches to learning on academic performance. Accounting Education, 8(4), 277-300. doi:10.1080/096392899330801Eley, M. G. (1992). Differential adoption of study approaches within individual students. Higher Education, 23(3), 231-254. doi:10.1007/bf00145015Abhayawansa, S., & Fonseca, L. (2010). Conceptions of Learning and Approaches to Learning—A Phenomenographic Study of a Group of Overseas Accounting Students from Sri Lanka. Accounting Education, 19(5), 527-550. doi:10.1080/09639284.2010.502651Zhang, L.-F. (2000). University Students’ Learning Approaches in Three Cultures: An Investigation of Biggs’s 3P Model. The Journal of Psychology, 134(1), 37-55. doi:10.1080/00223980009600847Richardson, J. T. E. (1994). Cultural specificity of approaches to studying in higher education: A literature survey. Higher Education, 27(4), 449-468. doi:10.1007/bf01384904Hall *, M., Ramsay, A., & Raven, J. (2004). Changing the learning environment to promote deep learning approaches in first-year accounting students. Accounting Education, 13(4), 489-505. doi:10.1080/0963928042000306837Duff *, A. (2004). Understanding academic performance and progression of first-year accounting and business economics undergraduates: the role of approaches to learning and prior academic achievement. Accounting Education, 13(4), 409-430. doi:10.1080/0963928042000306800Davidson, R. A. (2002). Relationship of study approach and exam performance. Journal of Accounting Education, 20(1), 29-44. doi:10.1016/s0748-5751(01)00025-2Salamonson, Y., Weaver, R., Chang, S., Koch, J., Bhathal, R., Khoo, C., & Wilson, I. (2013). Learning approaches as predictors of academic performance in first year health and science students. Nurse Education Today, 33(7), 729-733. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2013.01.013Entwistle, N., & Entwistle, D. (2003). Preparing for Examinations: The interplay of memorising and understanding, and the development of knowledge objects. Higher Education Research & Development, 22(1), 19-41. doi:10.1080/0729436032000056562Frăsineanu, E. S. (2013). Approach to Learning Process: Superficial Learning and Deep Learning at Students. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 76, 346-350. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.04.125Justicia, F., Pichardo, M. C., Cano, F., Berbén, A. B. G., & De la Fuente, J. (2008). The Revised Two-Factor Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F): Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses at item level. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 23(3), 355-372. doi:10.1007/bf03173004Fryer, L. K., Ginns, P., Walker, R. A., & Nakao, K. (2011). The adaptation and validation of the CEQ and the R-SPQ-2F to the Japanese tertiary environment. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 549-563. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02045.xGurpinar, E., Kulac, E., Tetik, C., Akdogan, I., & Mamakli, S. (2013). Do learning approaches of medical students affect their satisfaction with problem-based learning? Advances in Physiology Education, 37(1), 85-88. doi:10.1152/advan.00119.2012Parpala, A., Lindblom-Ylänne, S., Komulainen, E., Litmanen, T., & Hirsto, L. (2010). Students’ approaches to learning and their experiences of the teaching-learning environment in different disciplines. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(2), 269-282. doi:10.1348/000709909x476946Gijbels, D., Van de Watering, G., Dochy, F., & Van den Bossche, P. (2005). The relationship between students’ approaches to learning and the assessment of learning outcomes. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 20(4), 327-341. doi:10.1007/bf03173560Mogre, V., & Amalba, A. (2014). Assessing the reliability and validity of the Revised Two Factor Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ2F) in Ghanaian medical students. Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions, 11, 19. doi:10.3352/jeehp.2014.11.19Mok, C. K. F., Dodd, B., & Whitehill, T. L. (2009). Speech-language pathology students’ approaches to learning in a problem-based learning curriculum. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 11(6), 472-481. doi:10.3109/17549500903003052May, W., Chung, E.-K., Elliott, D., & Fisher, D. (2012). The relationship between medical students’ learning approaches and performance on a summative high-stakes clinical performance examination. Medical Teacher, 34(4), e236-e241. doi:10.3109/0142159x.2012.652995Marton, F. (1981). Phenomenography ? Describing conceptions of the world around us. Instructional Science, 10(2), 177-200. doi:10.1007/bf00132516Graham, N. C., Entwistle, N., & Ramsden, P. (1984). Understanding Student Learning. British Journal of Educational Studies, 32(3), 284. doi:10.2307/3121589Wilson, K. L., Smart, R. M., & Watson, R. J. (1996). Gender differences in approaches to learning in first year psychology students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 66(1), 59-71. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1996.tb01176.xBoyle, E. A., Duffy, T., & Dunleavy, K. (2003). Learning styles and academic outcome: The validity and utility of Vermunt’s Inventory of Learning Styles in a British higher education setting. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(2), 267-290. doi:10.1348/00070990360626976Fox, R. A., McManus, I. C., & Winder, B. C. (2001). The shortened Study Process Questionnaire: An investigation of its structure and longitudinal stability using confirmatory factor analysis. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(4), 511-530. doi:10.1348/000709901158659Zeegers, P. (2001). Approaches to learning in science: A longitudinal study. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(1), 115-132. doi:10.1348/000709901158424Snelgrove, S., & Slater, J. (2003). Approaches to learning: psychometric testing of a study process questionnaire. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 43(5), 496-505. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02747.xROSSUM, E. J., & SCHENK, S. M. (1984). THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEARNING CONCEPTION, STUDY STRATEGY AND LEARNING OUTCOME. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 54(1), 73-83. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1984.tb00846.xTrigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Waterhouse, F. (1999). Higher Education, 37(1), 57-70. doi:10.1023/a:1003548313194Crawford, K., Gordon, S., Nicholas, J., & Prosser, M. (1998). Qualitatively different experiences of learning mathematics at university. Learning and Instruction, 8(5), 455-468. doi:10.1016/s0959-4752(98)00005-xApproaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students (ASSIST) (Incorporating the Revised Approaches to Studying Inventory—RASI) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260291730_Approaches_and_Study_Skills_Inventory_for_Students_ASSIST_incorporating_the_Revised_Approaches_to_Studying_Inventory_-_RASIImmekus, J. C., & Imbrie, P. K. (2009). A Test and Cross-Validation of the Revised Two-Factor Study Process Questionnaire Factor Structure Among Western University Students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70(3), 495-510. doi:10.1177/0013164409355685Socha, A., & Sigler, E. A. (2014). Exploring and «reconciling» the factor structure for the Revised Two-factor Study Process Questionnaire. Learning and Individual Differences, 31, 43-50. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2013.12.010Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Furnham, A., & Lewis, M. (2007). Personality and approaches to learning predict preference for different teaching methods. Learning and Individual Differences, 17(3), 241-250. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2006.12.001Furnham, A., Monsen, J., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2009). Typical intellectual engagement, Big Five personality traits, approaches to learning and cognitive ability predictors of academic performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(4), 769-782. doi:10.1348/978185409x412147Phan, H. P. (2017). Multiple regression analysis of epistemological beliefs, learning approaches, and self-regulated learning. Electronic Journal of Research in Education Psychology, 6(14). doi:10.25115/ejrep.v6i14.1262Stes, A., De Maeyer, S., & Van Petegem, P. (2013). Examining the Cross-Cultural Sensitivity of the Revised Two-Factor Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F) and Validation of a Dutch Version. PLoS ONE, 8(1), e54099. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0054099Baeten, M., Kyndt, E., Struyven, K., & Dochy, F. (2010). Using student-centred learning environments to stimulate deep approaches to learning: Factors encouraging or discouraging their effectiveness. Educational Research Review, 5(3), 243-260. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2010.06.001Xie, Q., & Zhang, L. (2014). Demographic Factors, Personality, and Ability as Predictors of Learning Approaches. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 24(4), 569-577. doi:10.1007/s40299-014-0202-5Severiens, S., & Dam, G. (1998). A multilevel meta-analysis of gender differences in learning orientations. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68(4), 595-608. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1998.tb01315.xRubin, M., Scevak, J., Southgate, E., Macqueen, S., Williams, P., & Douglas, H. (2018). Older women, deeper learning, and greater satisfaction at university: Age and gender predict university students’ learning approach and degree satisfaction. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 11(1), 82-96. doi:10.1037/dhe0000042Gow, L., & Kember, D. (1990). Does higher education promote independent learning? Higher Education, 19(3), 307-322. doi:10.1007/bf00133895Richardson, J. T. E., & King, E. (1998). Adult Students in Higher Education. The Journal of Higher Education, 69(1), 65-88. doi:10.1080/00221546.1998.11775125Richardson, J. T. E. (2013). Approaches to studying across the adult life span: Evidence from distance education. Learning and Individual Differences, 26, 74-80. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2013.04.012Harper, G., & Kember, D. (1986). Approaches to Study of Distance Education Students. British Journal of Educational Technology, 17(3), 212-222. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.1986.tb00510.xLeung, D. Y. P., Ginns, P., & Kember, D. (2008). Examining the Cultural Specificity of Approaches To Learning in Universities in Hong Kong and Sydney. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39(3), 251-266. doi:10.1177/0022022107313905Entwistle, N., & Tait, H. (1990). Approaches to learning, evaluations of teaching, and preferences for contrasting academic environments. Higher Education, 19(2), 169-194. doi:10.1007/bf00137106Leung, S. F., Mok, E., & Wong, D. (2008). The impact of assessment methods on the learning of nursing students. Nurse Education Today, 28(6), 711-719. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2007.11.004Shuell, T. J. (1986). Cognitive Conceptions of Learning. Review of Educational Research, 56(4), 411-436. doi:10.3102/00346543056004411Biggs, J. (1999). What the Student Does: teaching for enhanced learning. Higher Education Research & Development, 18(1), 57-75. doi:10.1080/0729436990180105Berger, J.-L., & Karabenick, S. A. (2011). Motivation and students’ use of learning strategies: Evidence of unidirectional effects in mathematics classrooms. Learning and Instruction, 21(3), 416-428. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.06.002Zakariya. (2019). Study Approaches in Higher Education Mathematics: Investigating the Statistical Behaviour of an Instrument Translated into Norwegian. Education Sciences, 9(3), 191. doi:10.3390/educsci9030191Munshi, F., Al-Rukban, M., & Al-Hoqail, I. (2012). Reliability and validity of an Arabic version of the revised two-factor study process questionnaire R-SPQ-2F. Journal of Family and Community Medicine, 19(1), 33. doi:10.4103/2230-8229.94010Shaik, S. A., Almarzuqi, A., Almogheer, R., Alharbi, O., Jalal, A., & Alorainy, M. (2017). Assessing Saudi medical students learning approach using the revised two-factor study process questionnaire. International Journal of Medical Education, 8, 292-296. doi:10.5116/ijme.5974.7a06Watkins, D. (1986). The Approaches to Learning of Australian Tertiary Students: A Replication. Higher Education Research & Development, 5(2), 185-190. doi:10.1080/0729436860050207Jeong, J. S., González-Gómez, D., & Cañada-Cañada, F. (2019). How does a flipped classroom course affect the affective domain toward science course? Interactive Learning Environments, 29(5), 707-719. doi:10.1080/10494820.2019.1636079Wolf, E. J., Harrington, K. M., Clark, S. L., & Miller, M. W. (2013). Sample Size Requirements for Structural Equation Models. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73(6), 913-934. doi:10.1177/0013164413495237Moulaye M’Hamed Taher, A., Chen, J., & Yao, W. (2011). Key predictors of creative MBA students’ performance. Journal of Technology Management in China, 6(1), 43-68. doi:10.1108/17468771111105659Dong, N., Bai, M., Zhang, H., & Zhang, J. (2019). Approaches to learning IFRS by Chinese accounting students. Journal of Accounting Education, 48, 1-11. doi:10.1016/j.jaccedu.2019.04.002Selectividad 2018: Estas Son las Carreras Con las Notas de Corte Más Altas https://www.abc.es/sociedad/abci-selectividad-2018-estas-diez-carreras-notas-corte-mas-altas-201806041503_noticia.htmlUniversitat Politècnica de València. Notas de Corte Curso 2018-19 http://www.upv.es/pls/oalu/sic_futuroalumno.notascorte?p_idioma=cNotas de Corte 2018 https://elpais.com/especiales/universidades/titulacion/notas/biotecnologia/36Fryer, L. K., & Vermunt, J. D. (2017). Regulating approaches to learning: Testing learning strategy convergences across a year at university. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 21-41. doi:10.1111/bjep.12169Mujeres Matriculadas y Egresadas en Enseñanza de Grado y de Primer y segundo Ciclo por Rama de Enseñanza https://www.ine.es/jaxiT3/Datos.htm?t=12722Vermunt, J. D. (2005). Relations between student learning patterns and personal and contextual factors and academic performance. Higher Education, 49(3), 205-234. doi:10.1007/s10734-004-6664-2Chan, Y.-K., & Kan, A. C. N. (2017). The Interplay between Gender, Learning Approaches and Academic Performance in Chinese Sub-Degree and Degree Students. Global Journal of Educational Studies, 3(1), 10. doi:10.5296/gjes.v3i1.10781Scouller, K. (1998). Higher Education, 35(4), 453-472. doi:10.1023/a:1003196224280Bobe, B. J., & Cooper, B. J. (2017). The effect of language proficiency on approaches to learning and satisfaction of undergraduate accounting students. Accounting Education, 28(2), 149-171. doi:10.1080/09639284.2017.1396481Hundleby, J. D., & Nunnally, J. (1968). Psychometric Theory. American Educational Research Journal, 5(3), 431. doi:10.2307/1161962Vergara-Hernández, C., Simancas-Pallares, M., & Carbonell-Muñoz, Z. (2019). Psychometric properties of the revised two-factor study process questionnaire r-spq-2f - spanish version. Duazary, 16(2), 205-218. doi:10.21676/2389783x.2744Vaughan, B. (2018). A Rasch analysis of the Revised Study Process Questionnaire in an Australian osteopathy student cohort. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 56, 144-153. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2017.12.003Martyn, J., Terwijn, R., Kek, M. Y. C. A., & Huijser, H. (2014). Exploring the relationships between teaching, approaches to learning and critical thinking in a problem-based learning foundation nursing course. Nurse Education Today, 34(5), 829-835. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2013.04.023López-Aguado, M., & Gutiérrez-Provecho, L. (2018). Checking the underlying structure of R-SPQ-2F using covariance structure analysis / Comprobación de la estructura subyacente del R-SPQ-2F mediante análisis de estructura de covarianza. Cultura y Educación, 30(1), 105-141. doi:10.1080/11356405.2017.1416787Merino Soto, C., & Kumar Pradhan, R. (2013). VALIDACIÓN ESTRUCTURAL DEL R-SPQ-2F: UN ANÁLISIS FACTORIAL CONFIRMATORIO. Revista Digital de Investigación en Docencia Universitaria, (1), 111. doi:10.19083/ridu.7.19

Approaches to Learning Mathematics: Preliminary Evidence of a Concise, Valid, and Reliable Instrument

We assess students’ approaches to learning mathematics not only to predict students’ learning outcomes but also for its crucial utilities in the teaching and learning process. These utilities range from evaluating effective instructional interventions, determining students with learning difficulties, and comparing teaching and learning experience in higher education. However, measures of the constructs have raised validity concerns among researchers. A root cause of these validity concerns is traceable to the failure of these measures to account for the content-specificity of approaches to learning. Building on a previously developed general measure of the constructs, I designed this study to bridge this gap by developing and validating approaches to learning mathematics questionnaire (ALMQ). 352 first-year engineering students who gave voluntary consent participated in the study. The students were mainly males with ages ranging from 15 years to 29 years. The average age was 20.67 years, and its standard deviation was 2.164. I analysed the generated data using confirmatory factor analysis and judged the consistency of hypothesised models with the generated data using a combination of criteria. The findings revealed a two-factor ALMQ with seven items which demonstrated an excellent global and local fit of the generated data. The standardised factor loadings for all the items were above 0.68 with an average of 0.73 showing the high strengths of the items in measuring their respective constructs. I also found a reliability coefficient of 0.81 for deep approaches, 0.77 for surface approaches, and 0.72 for the two-factor ALMQ. These findings suggest preliminary evidence of the validity and reliability of ALMQ. I discussed the practical implications of the findings for educators, policymakers, and researchers interested in improving the mathematics learning experience.publishedVersio

Student learning approaches in the UAE: the case for the achieving domain

This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Taylor & Francis via the DOI in this record.The deep versus surface learning approach dichotomy has dominated recent research in student learning approach dimensions. However, the achievement dimension may differ in importance in non-Western and vocational tertiary settings. The aim was to assess how Emirati tertiary students could be characterized in terms of their learning approaches. The study looked into emergent learning factors that may be important in Emirati students. The students were Emirati men in a first year English for academic purposes program at a tertiary college (N=252). The students completed the Revised Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F) to determine learning orientation along the deep and surface approach dimensions. A factor analysis was carried out to assess emergent dimensions in the data. The results on the deep and surface dimensions were inconclusive. However, the factor analysis suggested a disposition towards a construct that we characterize as ‘attainment of satisfaction from learning.’ In addition, the factor analysis suggested the possibility of the achieving domain emerging as a separate construct from the surface domain in this context, contrasting with previous research employing the R-SPQ-2F. The results suggest that the deep versus surface learning approach model may not sufficiently represent the complexity of student motivations and strategies in the current context. In addition, student affect tied to outcomes is discussed as an important though perhaps overlooked dimension in non-Western contexts. The implications of the results to future research are considered

Short form of revised two-factor study process questionnaire: Development, validation, and cross-validation in two European countries

publishedVersio

Enfoques de aprendizaje: un análisis de las propiedades psicométricas básicas de tres cuestionarios cortos

El modelo educativo resultante de la integración en el Espacio Europeo requiere del profesorado actuar como gestores del contexto de aprendizaje, seleccionando recursos y metodologías de entre las disponibles. Los cuestionarios que miden los enfoques de aprendizaje pueden ser una herramienta valiosa del profesorado de diagnóstico inicial de las características del alumnado así como de evaluación del impacto de innovaciones. Existe una demanda de versiones cortas de los inventarios por diversas razones: limitaciones de tiempo y recursos para administrar y procesar los cuestionarios, alta probabilidad de obtener respuestas incompletas, etc. Sólo una versión corta de un cuestionario de enfoques de aprendizaje se ha validado en España: el Revised SPQ-2f de Biggs et al., (2001) por Hernández Pina et al., (2005). Este es un cuestionario que mide dos factores, profundo y superficial. Sin embargo, la literatura sigue dando soporte a la existencia de un tercer factor: logro. No existe ninguna versión corta de tres factores validada en español. En esta línea, el objetivo de este trabajo es presentar las propiedades psicométricas básicas de tres cuestionarios cortos, dos ya existentes en la literatura y un tercero desarrollado por los autores desde las versiones largas. Los resultados indican que el cuestionario de dos factores y el desarrollado por los autores (NSPQ-3f ) presentan propiedades aceptables, mientras que el Short SPQ-3f (Fox et al. 2001) muestra problemas de fiabilidad. Los resultados también proporcionan soporte para considerar la existencia de logro como un tercer factor. En consecuencia, en carreras en las que la motivación es externa (p.e. las relacionadas con administración de empresas) el uso de un cuestionario de dos factores podría resultar en una evaluación incompleta de los enfoques de aprendizaje de los alumnos.The educational model resulted from the integration in the European Higher Education Area demands from the teaching staff to act as managers of the learning context, selecting resources and the appropriate pedagogy among several alternatives. The questionnaires that measure the approaches to learning of students could be a valuable tool in order to make an initial diagnosis of students’ characteristics, as well as to assess the impact of pedagogical innovations.Short questionnaires are more demanded by practitioners due to several reasons. Frequently form part of a set of measures, there are resource constraints (time and financial) to administer and process the data, and long questionnaires are more likely to be incompletely answered. Only one version of short questionnaires measuring approaches to learning has been validated in Spanish: the version of the Revised SPQ-2f (Biggs et al., 2001) by Hernández Pina et al., (2005). This is a 20 items version focusing in two approaches: deep and surface. However, further research (e.g. Entwistle et al., 2002; Fox et al. 2001, or Tait et al., 1998) keep supporting the existence of the third approach: achieving. No short questionnaire measuring these three approaches has been validated in Spanish. In this line the main aim of the paper is to present the basic psychometric properties of the Spanish versions of the three existing short instruments derived from the initial Study Process Questionnaire by Biggs: the Revised SPQ-2f (Biggs et al. 2001), the Short SPQ-3f (Fox et al. 2001) and the N-SPQ-3f (developed by the authors). The results indicate that the Revised SPQ-2f and N-SPQ-3f presented adequate properties, whereas the SPQ-3f shows reliability problems. Our results also suggest that there is support to consider the achieving approach as an independent construct (contrariwise to the opinion of Biggs et al., 2001, when developing the R-SPQ-2f). Therefore, in degrees where motivation is mainly external, the use of a 2 factor instrument could result in an incomplete view of the approaches to learning of students

Psychometric properties of the revised two-factor study process questionnaire r-spq-2f - spanish version

El objetivo del presente estudio fue evaluar las propiedades psicométricas del cuestionario de procesos de estudio revisado – 2 factores (CPE-R-2F) en estudiantes de ciencias de la salud en Cartagena, Colombia. Estudio de validación de escalas, sin patrón de referencia en 857 estudiantes que respondieron el CPE-R-2F. Para determinar el número de factores que explicaban el constructo se condujo análisis de factores (exploratorio). El análisis de factores confirmatorio determinó la validez de constructo y el alfa de Cronbach la consistencia interna del instrumento. El CPE-R-2F mostró un puntaje medio de 66,01±12,38 con mínimo 36 y máximo 99. El AFE mostró una solución de dos factores que explicó el 42,56% de la varianza total. El AFC mostró como índices de ajuste χ2: 962.783; gl: 166; RCEMA: 0,075, IC 90%: 0,070 – 0,079); ICA: 0,883 e ITL: 0,866. CPE-R-2F es una escala con aceptable confiabilidad y estructura factorial bidimensional de cuestionable validez de constructo que muestra utilidad en estudios relacionados con el análisis de estrategias de aprendizaje en educación superior. Es recomendable seguir investigando sobre sus propiedades psicométricas en el futuro en otras poblaciones similares.The aim of this research was to determine the psychometric properties (construct validity and internal consistency) of The Revised Two-Factor Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F) in health sciences students from Cartagena, Colombia. Validation study without a standard criterion in 857 health sciences students whom answered the R-SPQ-2F. The number of factors that explained the construct was determined using exploratory factor analysis. Confirmatory factor analysis determined construct validity and Cronbach’s Alpha internal consistency. R-SQP-2F showed a mean value 66.01±12.3 with minimum 36 and maximum 99. EFA showed a two-factor solution that accounted for the 42.5% of the total variance. However, CFA showed the following fit indexes: χ2=962.783; df=166; RMSEA=0.075 (90% CI %: 0.070-0.079); CFI=0.883; TLI=0.866. R-SPQ-2F is a scale with acceptable internal consistency and two-factor structure with questionable construct validity. However, it shows practical utility on higher education learning strategies related-research. Researchers need additional studies about its psychometric properties in the future

Effect of active learning techniques on students’ choice of approach to learning in Dentistry: a South African case study

The purpose of this article is to report on empirical work, related to a techniques module, undertaken with the dental students of the University of the Western Cape, South Africa. I will relate how a range of different active learning techniques (tutorials; question papers and mock tests) assisted students to adopt a deep approach to learning in this large diverse group of students. They then completed an adapted version of the revised study process questionnaire which focussed on the effects of these active learning techniques and how these learning techniques assisted with a change in approach to learning adopted by them. Results indicated that the active learning techniques led to a better understanding of the concepts covered within the module. It also showed how the new exercises guided them to adopt a deep approach to learning. It can be concluded that with this type of educational research, students’ learning difficulties are not just emphasized and highlighted but that these problems are also understood. This research also guided the educator to search for practical solutions to these observed difficultiesDHE

Vocation, motivation and approaches to learning: a comparative study

Purpose – The individual characteristics of students can have a strong influence on the success of the adopted innovations in terms of their transferability and sustainability. The purpose of this paper is to compare the motivations and approaches to learning on degrees with differing vocational components. Design/methodology/approach – Self-Determination Theory (SDT) and approaches to learning framework were used as theoretical background. Questionnaires were used to generate data. The sample was composed by 270 students enroled on differing degrees in term of motivation (accounting and nursing). Findings – The results reveal differences in the approaches to learning and motivation between nursing and accounting students. Nursing degree seem to attract more internally motivated students, presenting significantly higher scores in terms of deep approach and lower scores on surface approach. Significant relationships where found between motivation and approaches. Research limitations/implications – Data are obtained from students studying at a specific university in two degrees. Practical implications – The result suggest that different degrees could attract students with different motivations and approaches to learning. Educators must be aware of which type of students are being attracted to their classrooms, because the inconsistencies between the students’ motives and approaches, the way the contents are presented, the pedagogy and the assessment system could result in poorer learning and failure to transfer or sustain innovations. Originality/value – This paper adds to the very scarce literature linking motivation and approaches. The implications for curriculum design and delivery and specifically for assessment design are of interest for educators.Junta de Andalucía – FEDER (Proyectos de Excelencia: SEJ-02670