[Home ] [Archive]   [ فارسی ]  
:: Main :: About :: Current Issue :: Archive :: Search :: Submit :: Contact ::
Main Menu
Home::
Journal Information::
About the Journal
Aims & Scopes
Editorial Board
Indexing
Archive::
All Issues
Current Issue
For Authors::
Author's Guide
Reference Guide
Submit an Article
For Reviewers::
Reviewers Guide
Principles of Transparency::
Publication Ethics Statement
Research Ethics Statement
Open Access Statement
Copyright
Contact us::
::
Search in website

Advanced Search
..
Receive site information
Enter your Email in the following box to receive the site news and information.
..
:: Volume 8, Issue 2 (May-June 2015) ::
Educ Strategy Med Sci 2015, 8(2): 83-89 Back to browse issues page
Students' Approaches to Learning Superficial, Strategic and Deep
Mehdinezhad V 1, Esmaeeli R2
1- Educational Planning & Administration Department, Education & Psychology Faculty, University of Sistan and Baluchestan, Zahedan, Iran , valmeh@ped.usb.ac.ir
2- 1Education Department, Education and Psychology Faculty, University of Sistan and Baluchestan, Zahedan, Iran
Abstract:   (8566 Views)

Aims: Approaches to learning are series of mental activities of learners during study which used for more effective receiving, organizing and recalling information. The purpose of this study was to study superficial, strategic and deep approaches to learning among students.

Instrument & Methods: In this descriptive survey which is done in 2012-13 academic year, 380 students of Zahedan University of Medical Sciences (152 males and 228 females) were selected using a stratified sampling method based on gender. The instrument of this research was the Tait et al revised ASSIST questionnaire. SPSS 20 was used to analyze data by single variant T, independent T, Analysis of Variance, and Bonferroni Post Hoc tests.

Findings: 179 of students (47.1%) were using strategic approach, 133 students (35.0%) were using superficial approach and only 68 (17.9%) were using deep approach. There was a significant difference in the deep (p<0.001) and strategic (p<0.005) approaches between average scores of male and female students. Among the age groups, there was also a significant difference in the superficial superficial (p<0.01) and deep approach (p<0.005).

Conclusion: More than 80% of students use superficial and strategic approaches that are memory-based and result-oriented. In contrast, students are less oriented to use deep approach to learning.
Keywords: Learning [MeSH], Students Medical [MeSH], Education [MeSH]
Full-Text [PDF 451 kb]   (3225 Downloads)    
Article Type: Descriptive & Survey | Subject: Curriculum Design in Medical Science
Received: 2015/04/25 | Accepted: 2015/06/16 | Published: 2015/06/17
References
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. [PubMed]
2. Cano F. Consonance and dissonance in students\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\' learning experience. Learn Instruction, 2005;15(3):201-23. [Science Direct]
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] [Homepage]
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] [File]
5. Marton F, Saljo R. On qualitative differences in learning: I-outcome and process. Br J Educ Psychol. 1976;46(1):4-11. [DOI]
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. [DOI]
7. Biggs JB. Student approaches to learning and studying. Research monograph. Melbourne, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research; 1987. [Homepage]
8. Biggs JB. Approaches to the enhancement of tertiary teaching. Higher Educ Res Dev. 1989;8(1):7-25. [DOI]
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. [PubMed]
10. Ramsden P. Learning to teach in higher education. London: Rutledge; 2003. [Homepage]
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. [Homepage]
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. [DOI]
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. [Homepage]
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. [Homepage]
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. [Homepage]
16. Biggs JB. Individual and group differences in study processes. Br J Educ Psychol. 1978;48(3):266-79. [Homepage]
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. [Homepage]
18. Lublin J. Deep, surface and strategic approaches to learning. Centre for Teaching and Learning; 2003. [File]
19. Trigwell K, Prosser M. Development and use of the approaches to teaching inventory. J Educ Psychol Review. 2004;16(4):409-24. [Homepage]
20. Biggs J. Teaching for quality learning at university. 4th edition. New York: Open University Press; 2011. [Homepage]
21. Entwistle N, Entwistle NJ. Styles of Learning and teaching: An integrated outline of educational psychology for students, teachers, and lecturers. David Fulton; 1981. [Homepage]
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] [File]
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] [File]
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] [Homepage]
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] [File]
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] [File]
27. Crawford K, Gordon S, Nicholas J, Prosser M. Qualitatively different experiences of learning mathematics at university. Learn Instructor. 1998;8(5):455-68. [Science Direct]
28. Hazel E, Prosser M, Trigwell K. Variation in learning orchestration in university biology courses. Int J Sci Educ. 2002;24(7):737-51. [DOI]
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. [DOI]
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. [PubMed]
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. [File]
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. [Science Direct]
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. [Homepage]
34. Bradford K. Deep and surface approaches to learning strategic approach to study in higher education, Based on Phenomenghraphic Research, 2007. [Homepage]
35. Krejcie RV, Morgan DW. Determining sample size for research activities. Educ Psychol Meas. 1970;30:607-8. [Homepage]
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. [Homepage]
37. Gow L, Kember D. Does higher education promote independent learning?. Higher Educ. 1990;19(3):307-22. [Homepage]
Send email to the article author

Add your comments about this article
Your username or Email:

CAPTCHA

XML   Persian Abstract   Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Mehdinezhad V, Esmaeeli R. Students' Approaches to Learning Superficial, Strategic and Deep. Educ Strategy Med Sci 2015; 8 (2) :83-89
URL: http://edcbmj.ir/article-1-800-en.html
Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Volume 8, Issue 2 (May-June 2015) Back to browse issues page
دوماهنامه علمی- پژوهشی راهبــردهای آموزش در علوم پزشکی Education Strategies in Medical Sciences
Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.06 seconds with 37 queries by YEKTAWEB 4645