The relationship between approaches to teaching and approaches to studying: A two-level structural equation model for biology achievement in high school

Metacognition and Learning

Volumn 8, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 47-77

  Rosário, Pedro ^a   Núñez, José Carlos ^b   Ferrando, Pere J ^c   Paiva, Maria Olímpia ^a   Lourenço, Abílio ^a   Cerezo, Rebeca ^b   Valle, Antonio ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINHO   (Portugal)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OVIEDO   (Spain)

^c UNIVERSITAT ROVIRA I VIRGILI   (Spain)

^d UNIVERSITY OF A CORUÑA   (Spain)

Author keywords

Academic success; Approaches to learning; Approaches to teaching; High school; Two level structural equation model

Indexed keywords

EID: 84874814779     PISSN: 15561623     EISSN: 15561631     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11409-013-9095-6     Document Type: Article

References (78)

1. Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271.
2. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246.
3. Biggs, J. B. (1985). The role of meta-learning in study processes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 55, 185-212.
4. Biggs, J. B. (1987a). Student approaches to learning and studying. Hawthorn: Australian Council for Educational Research.
5. Biggs, J. B. (1987b). The Learning Process Questionnaire (LPQ): Users' manual. Hawthorn: Australian Council for Educational Research.
6. Biggs, J. B. (1993). What do inventories of students' learning processes really measure? A theoretical review and clarification. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 3-19.
7. Biggs, J. B. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university (2nd ed.). Buckingham: Open University Press/Society for Research into Higher Education.
8. Biggs, J. B., Kember, D., & Leung, D. (2001). The revised two-factor Study Process Questionnaire: R-SPQ-SF. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 133-149.
9. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 445-455). Newbury Park: Sage.
10. Campbell, J., Smith, D., Boulton-Lewis, G., Brownlee, J., Burnett, P. C., Carrington, S., et al. (2001). Students' perceptions of teaching and learning: the influence of students' approaches to learning and teachers' approaches to teaching. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 7, 173-187.
11. Cano, F., & Berbén, A. B. G. (2009). University students' achievement goals and approaches to learning in mathematics. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 131-153.
12. Ciani, K. D., Summers, J. J., & Easter, M. A. (2008). A "top-down" analysis of high school teacher motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 533-560.
13. Ciani, K., Middleton, M., Summers, J., & Sheldon, K. (2010). Buffering against performance classroom goal structures: the importance of autonomy support and classroom community. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35, 88-99.
14. Covington, M. V., & Omelich, C. L. (1984). Task-oriented versus competitive learning structures: motivational and performance consequences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1038-1050.
15. Curran, P. J., West, S. G., & Finch, J. F. (1997). The robustness of test statistics to non-normality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1, 16-29.
16. De la Fuente, J., Pichardo, M., Justicia, F., & Berbén, A. B. G. (2008). Learning approaches, self-regulation and achievement in three European universities. Psicothema, 20, 705-711.
17. Diseth, A. (2007). Approaches to learning, course experience and examination grade among undergraduate psychology students: testing of mediator effects and construct validity. Studies in Higher Education, 32, 373-388.
18. Entwistle, N. J. (1991). Approaches to learning and perceptions of the learning environment. Higher Education, 22, 201-204.
19. Entwistle, N. J. (2000). Approaches to studying and levels of understanding: The influences of teaching and assessment. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 156-218). New York: Agathon.
20. Entwistle, N. J. (2009). Teaching for understanding at University: Deep approaches and distinctive ways of thinking. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
21. Entwistle, N. J., & Entwistle, A. (1991). Contrasting forms of understanding for degree examinations: the student experience and its implications. Higher Education, 22, 205-227.
22. Entwistle, N., McCune, V., & Walker, P. (2001). Conceptions, styles, and approaches within higher education: Analytical abstractions and everyday experience. In R. J. Sternberg & L. F. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on cognitive, learning and thinking styles (pp. 103-136). New Jersey: Erlbaum.
23. Entwistle, N. J., McCune, V., & Hounsell, J. (2002). Approaches to studying and perceptions of university teaching-learning environments: Concepts, measures, and preliminary findings. Occasional Report 1, ETL Project. Edinburgh, UK: Universities of Edinburgh, Coventry, and Durham.
24. Epstein, J. L. (1988). Effective schools or effective students: Dealing with diversity. In R. Haskins & D. Macrae (Eds.), Policies for America's public schools: Teachers, equity, and indicators (pp. 89-126). Norwood: Ablex.
25. Finney, S. J., & DiStefano, C. (2006). Non-normal and categorical data in structural equation modeling. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), Structural equation modeling. A second course (pp. 269-314). Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.
26. Graesser, A. C., & Person, N. K. (1994). Question asking during tutoring. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 104-137.
27. Hazel, E., Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (2002). Variation in Learning Orchestration in University Biology Courses. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 737-751.
28. Heck, R. H., & Thomas, S. L. (2009). An introduction to multilevel modeling techniques. London: Routledge.
29. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1-55.
30. Jackling, B. (2005). Analysis of the learning context, perceptions of the learning environment and approaches to learning accounting: a longitudinal study. Accounting and Finance, 45, 597-612.
31. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1983). LISREL-6 User's Reference Guide. Mooresville: Scientific Software.
32. Kaplan, A., Middleton, M. J., Urdan, T., & Midgley, C. (2002). Achievement goals and goal structures. In C. Midgley (Ed.), Goals, goal structures, and patterns of adaptive learning (pp. 21-53). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
33. Kember, D., Biggs, J., & Leung, D. Y. P. (2004). Examining the multidimensionality of approaches to learning through the development of a revised version of the Learning Process Questionnaire. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 261-280.
34. Kline, R. B. (2010). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press.
35. Leung, M. Y., Wang, Y., & Chan, D. K. K. (2007). Structural surface-achieving model in the teaching and learning process for construction engineering students. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 133, 327-339.
36. Lindblom-Ylänne, S., Trigwell, K., Nevgi, A., & Ashwin, P. (2006). How approaches to teaching are affected by discipline and teaching context. Studies in Higher Education, 31, 285-298.
37. Maas, C. J. M., & Hox, J. J. (2004). Robustness issues in multilevel regression analysis. Statistica Neerlandica, 58, 127-137.
38. Maas, C. J. M., & Hox, J. J. (2005). Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel modeling. Methodology, 1, 86-92.
39. MacCallum, R. C., & Austin, J. T. (2000). Applications of structural equation modeling in psychological research. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 201-226.
40. Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976a). On qualitative differences in learning: I-Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4-11.
41. Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976b). On qualitative differences in learning: II. Outcome as a function of the learner's conception of the task. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 115-127.
42. Meece, J. L., Anderman, E. M., & Anderman, L. H. (2006). Classroom goal structure, student motivation, and academic achievement. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 487-503.
43. Mehta, P. D., & Neale, M. C. (2005). People are variables too: multilevel structural equations modeling. Psychological Methods, 10, 259-284.
44. Meyer, J. H. F., & Eley, M. G. (2006). The approaches to teaching inventory: a critique of its development and applicability. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 633-649.
45. Murayama, K., & Elliot, A. (2009). The joint influence of personal achievement goals and classroom goal structures on achievement-relevant outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 101, 432-444.
46. Muthén, B. O. (1991). Multilevel factor analysis of class and student achievement components. Journal of Educational Measurement, 28, 338-354.
47. Muthén, L. K. & Muthén, B. O. (2011). Mplus user's guide. Los Angeles: Author.
48. Nystrand, M., Wu, L. L., Gamoran, A., Zeiser, S., & Long, D. A. (2003). Questions in time: investigating the structure and dynamics of unfolding classroom discourse. Discourse Processes, 35, 135-198.
49. Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 667-686.
50. Preacher, K. J., Zhang, Z., & Zyphur, M. J. (2010). A general multilevel framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15, 209-233.
51. Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1991). Student evaluations of teaching and courses: student learning approaches and outcomes as criteria of validity. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 16, 293-301.
52. Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1997). Relations between perceptions of the teaching environment and approaches to teaching. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 25-35.
53. Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1998). Teaching for learning in higher education. Buckingham: Open University Press.
54. Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding learning and teaching. Buckingham: SRHE & Open University Press.
55. Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis of the approaches to teaching inventory. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 405-419.
56. Prosser, M., Trigwell, K., & Taylor, P. (1994). A phenomenographic study of academics' conceptions of science learning and teaching. Learning and Instruction, 4, 217-231.
57. Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge.
58. Ramsden, P., Prosser, M., Trigwell, K., & Martin, E. (2007). University teachers' experiences of academic leadership and their approaches to teaching. Learning and Instruction, 17, 140-155.
59. Richardson, J. T. E. (2005). Students' approaches to learning and teachers' approaches to teaching in higher education. Educational Psychology, 25, 673-680.
60. Rosário, P., Mourão, R., Núñez, J. C., González-Pienda, J. A., Solano, P., & Valle, A. (2007). Evaluating the efficacy of a program to enhance college students' self-regulation learning processes and learning strategies. Psicothema, 19, 353-358.
61. Rosário, P., González-Pienda, J. A., Pinto, R., Ferreira, P., Lourenço, A., & Paiva, O. (2010). Efficacy of the program "Testas's (mis)adventures" to promote the deep approach to learning. Psicothema, 22, 828-834.
62. Rosário, P., Núñez, J. C., González-Pienda, J. A., Valle, A., Trigo, L., & Guimarães, C. (2010). Enhancing self-regulation and approaches to learning in first-year college students: a narrative-based program assessed in the Iberian Peninsula. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 25, 411-428.
63. Shim, S. S., Cho, Y., & Wang, C. (2013). Classroom goal structures, social achievement goals, and adjustment in middle school. Learning and Instruction, 23, 69-77.
64. Snijders, T. A. B. (2005). Power and sample size in multilevel linear models. In B. S. Everitt & D. C. Howell (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Statistics in Behavioral Science, Vol. 3 (pp. 1570-1573). New York: Wiley.
65. Stes, A., Gijbels, D., & van Petegem, P. (2008). Student-focused approaches to teaching in relation to context and teacher characteristics. Higher Education, 55, 255-267.
66. Stes, A., Maeyer, S., & van Petegem, P. (2010). Approaches to teaching in higher education: validation of a Dutch version of the approaches to teaching inventory. Learning Environment Research, 13, 59-73.
67. Struyven, K., Dochy, F., Janssens, S., & Gielen, S. (2006). On the dynamics of students' approaches to learning: the effects of the teaching/learning environment. Learning and Instruction, 16, 279-294.
68. Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1991a). Improving quality of student learning: the influence of learning context and student approaches to learning on learning outcomes. Higher Education, 22, 251-266.
69. Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1991b). Relating approaches to study and quality of learning outcomes at the course level. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 61, 265-275.
70. Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1996). Congruence between intention and strategy in university science teachers' approaches to teaching. Higher Education, 32, 77-87.
71. Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (2003). Qualitative differences in university teaching. In M. Tight (Ed.), Access and exclusion (pp. 185-216). Oxford: JAI Elsevier.
72. Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (2004). Development and use of the approaches to teaching inventory. Educational Psychology Review, 16, 409-424.
73. Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Waterhouse, F. (1999). Relations between teachers' approaches to teaching and students' approaches to learning. Higher Education, 37, 57-70.
74. Urdan, T., & Schoenfelder, E. (2006). Classroom effects on student motivation: goal structures, social relationships, and competence beliefs. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 331-349.
75. Valle, A., Cabanach, R. G., Núñez, J. C., González-Pienda, J. A., Rodríguez, S., & Piñeiro, I. (2003). Cognitive, motivational, and volitional dimensions of learning: an empirical test of a hypothetical model. Research in Higher Education, 44, 557-580.
76. West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural equation models with non-normal variables: Problems and remedies. In R. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues and applications (pp. 55-75). Newbury Park: Sage.
77. Zhang, M., Lundeberg, M., McConnell, T., Koehler, M., & Eberhardt, J. (2010). Using questioning to facilitate discussion of science teaching problems in teacher professional development. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning. 4(1), Article 5. Doi: 10. 7771/1541-5015. 1097. 7.
78. Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 166-183.