Access policy and approaches to learning

International Journal of Phytoremediation

Volumn 21, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 99-110

  Duff, Angus ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF THE WEST OF SCOTLAND   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Access policy; Age; Approach to learning; Direct entry; Gender

Indexed keywords

EID: 85066204071     PISSN: 15226514     EISSN: 15497879     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/096392899330955     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Biggs, J. B., 1985. The role of metalearning in study processes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 55 November: 185–212.
2. Biggs, J. B., 1987. Student Approaches to Learning and Studying, Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.
3. Brown, A., and Bimrose, J., 1993. Admissions to Higher Education: Current Practice and Future Policy, Guildford: University of Surrey.
4. Clarke, R. M., 1986. Students' approaches to learning in an innovative medical school: a crosssectional study. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 56 (3): 309–321.
5. Clennell, S., 1987. Older Students in Adult Education, Milton Keynes: Open University.
6. Deere, M., 1992. Admissions to Higher Education: A Survey in Higher Education in the Post-Binary System, London: Gresham College.
7. Department for Education and Employment. 1994a. Mature Students in Higher Education - Great Britain: 1982 ta 1992, Statistical Bulletin 16/94 Darlington: DfEE.
8. Department for Education and Employment. 1994b. Students in Higher Education - England: 1991 and 1992, Statistical Bulletin 17/94 Darlington: DfEE.
9. Duff, A., 1997. A note on the reliability and validity of a 30-item version of Entwistle & Tait's Revised Approaches to Studying Inventory. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67 (4): 529–539.
10. Entwistle, N. J., 1987. “ A model of the teacher-learning process ”. In Student Learning: Research in Education and Cognitive Psychology, Edited by: Richardson, J. T. E., Eysenck, M. W., and Warren Piper, D., 13–28. Milton Keynes: SRHE and Open University Press.
11. Entwistle, N. J., and Ramsden, P., 1983. Understanding Student Learning, London: Croom Helm.
12. Fulton, O., and Ellwood, S., 1989. Admissions ta Higher Education: Policy and Practice, Sheffield: Employment Department Training Agency.
13. Germon, S., and La Gro, N., 1993. Gatekeepers' Views of the Requirements of Entrants into Higher Education, Guildford: University of Surrey.
14. Gibbs, G., 1992. Improving Student Learning, Bristol: Technical and Educational Services.
15. Gledhill, R. F., and van Der Merwe, C. A., 1989. Gender as a factor in student learning: preliminary findings. Medical Education, 23 (2): 201–204.
16. Harper, G., and Kember, D., 1986. Approaches to study of distance education students. British Journal of Educational Technology, 17 (3): 212–222.
17. Henson, M., and Schmeck, R. R., 1993. Learning styles of community college versus university students. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 76 (1): 118
18. Metcalf, H., 1993. Non-traditional Students' Experiences of Higher Education, London: CVCP.
19. Miller, C. D., Finley, J., and McKinley, D. L., 1990. Learning approaches and motives: male and female differences and implications for learning assistance programs. Journal of College Student Development, 31: 147–154.
20. Morgan, A., Gibbs, G., and Taylor, E., 1980. Student's Approaches to Studying the Social Science and Technology Foundation Courses: Preliminary Studies, Study Methods Group No. 4 Milton Keynes: Open University.
21. NCIHE, (National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education) (the Dearing Committee). 1996. Terms of Reference, Bristol: Higher Education Funding Council for England.
22. Nunnally, J. C., 1978. Psychometric Theory, 2nd edn, New York: McGraw-Hill.
23. Richardson, J. T. E., 1993. Gender differences in responses to the Approaches to Studying Inventory. Studies in Higher Education, 18 (1): 3–13.
24. Richardson, J. T. E., 1994. Mature students in higher education: I. A literature survey on approaches to studying, Studies in Higher Education, 19 (3): 309–325.
25. Richardson, J. T. E., 1995. Mature students in higher education: D. An investigation of approaches to studying and academic performance, Studies in Higher Education, 20 (1): 5–17.
26. Roberts, D., and Higgins, T., 1992. Higher Education: The Student Experience, Leeds: Heist.
27. Schmeck, R. R., Ribich, F. D., and Ramaniah, N., 1977. Development of a self-report inventory for assessing individual differences in learning processes. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1: 413–431.
28. Tait, H., and Entwistle, N. J., 1995. The Revised Approaches ta Studying Inventory, Edinburgh: Centre for Research on Learning and Instruction, University of Edinburgh.
29. Watkins, D., 1982. Identifying the study process dimensions of Australian university students. Australian Journal of Education, 26 (1): 76–85.
30. Watkins, D., and Hattie, J., 1981. The learning processes of Australian university students: investigations of contextual and personological factors. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 51 November: 384–393.
31. Watkins, D., and Hattie, J., 1985. A longitudinal study of the approaches to learning of Australian tertiary students. Human Learning, 4 (2): 127–141.
32. Wilson, K. L., Smart, R. M., and Watson, R. J., 1996. Gender differences in approaches to learning in first year psychology students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 66 (1): 59–71.
33. Woodley, A., 1981. “ Age bias ”. In Is Higher Education Fair?, Edited by: Warren Piper, D., 80–103. Guildford: Society for Research into Higher Education.