Received: 03 Mar 2019 , Published: 04 March 2019
Views: 112 , Download: 0
|1||Eshetu Kibret Emiru|
Background: By examining the correlation between teachers’ approaches to teaching and students approach to learning and learning outcomes, strategies are designed to mediate those variables that affect students learning outcomes. The study was conducted to scrutinize the correlation between teachers’ approaches to teaching and students approach to learning and learning outcomes.
Methods: Three type of instruments; Approaches to Teaching Inventory (ATI), the Revised two-factor Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ) and students Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA) were used as tools of data collection. The data was collected from sixteen randomly selected teachers and 134 under graduate students attended in 2016/2017 academic year of Education and Behavioral Sciences institute of Debre Markos University, Ethiopia. . The collected data was analyzed via one sample t-test and Pearson product moment correlation coefficient. One-sample t-test was computed to determine the extent of learning approaches used by students. Pearson product moment correlation coefficient was computed to examine the correlation between teachers’ approaches to teaching and students’ approaches to learning, and teachers teaching approaches with students learning outcomes. p < 0.05 was used for a cut-off for statistical significance.
Results: The study revealed that students were used deep approaches. It can be disclosed that students-focused approach to teaching has significant positive association with students’ deep approaches to learning. The study also affirmed that students’ learning outcomes have significant positive correlation with teachers conceptual change approach to teaching. Significant positive correlation was also identified between students’ deeper approaches to learning and their learning outcomes.
Conclusions: The study provided unveils that students-focused approach to teaching has significant positive association with students’ deep approaches to learning. It is also disclosed that students’ deeper approaches to learning and conceptual change approach to teaching have positive correlation with students learning outcomes.
AK, S. (2008) A Conceptual Analysis on the Approaches to Learning. Educational Sciences:
Theory & Practice. 8 (3), 707-720.
Biggs, J. B. (1987).Student approaches to learning and studying. Melbourne: Australian Council
for Educational Research.
Biggs, J. (1999) Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham: Society for
Research into Higher Education.and Open University Press.
Biggs J, Kember D, Leung DYP. (2001) The Revised two-factor Study Process Questionnaire:
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 133–149.
Bligh, D. (1972) What's the use of lectures?, Harmondsworth: Penguin
Cilliers, C.D.,& Sternberg, R.J. (2001). Thinking styles: Implication for optimizing learning and
teaching in university education. South African Journal of Higher Education, 15(1),13-24
Emilia1, O, Bloomfield,L and Rotem, A (2012). Measuring students’ approaches to learning in
different clinical rotations. BMC Medical Education, BioMed Central Ltd.
Gijbels, D., de Watering, G. V., Dochy, G., & den Bossche, P. V. (2005). The correlation
between students’ approaches to learning and the assessment of learning outcomes.
European Journal of Psychology of Education, XX(4), 327–341.
Groves, M. (2005). Problem-based learning and learning approach: Is there a correlation?
Advances in Health Sciences Education, 10, 315–326.
Gürlen,E., Turan, S., and Senemo?lu, N. (2013) The correlation between learning approaches
of prospective teachers and their academic achievement. Educational Research and Review
Vol. 8(5), pp. 171-178.
Lublin, J. (2003) Deep, surface and strategic approaches to learning. Center for Teaching and
Learning, UCD, Dublin
Marton, F. & Säljö, R. (1976a). On qualitative differences in learning I, outcome and process.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4-11.
Qureshi S and Ullah R (2014) Learning experiences of higher education students: Approaches to
learning as measures of quality of learning outcomes. Bulletin of Education and Research
Sulaiman WS, Rahman WR, Dzulkifli MA, Sulaiman WS.(2013) Reliability of second-order
factor of a revised two-factor study process questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F) among university
students in Malaysia. Asean J Teach Learn High Educ. 5(2):1–13.
Serife, A. (2008) A Conceptual Analysis on the Approaches to Learning. Educational Sciences:
Theory & Practice; Vol. 8 Issue 3, p707-720, 14p, 3
Taher, A. and Jin, C(2011) Assessing learning approaches of Chinese local MBA students: An
investigation using the Revised Two-factor Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F).
Educational Research and Reviews Vol. 6(19), pp. 974-978
Tarabashkina, L. and Lietz, P (2011). The impact of values and learning approaches on student
achievement: Gender and academic discipline influences. Issues in Educational Research, 21(2),
Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1991). Relating approaches to studying and quality of student
learning outcomes at the course level. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 61,265-275.
Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Ginns, P. (2005). Phenomenographic pedagogy and a revised
approaches to teaching inventory. Higher Education Research and Development, 24, 349
Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Waterhouse, F. (1999). Relations between teachers’ approaches to
teaching and students’ approaches to learning. Higher Education, 37, 57–70.
Zeegers, P. (1999). Student learning in science: A longitudinal study using the Biggs SPQ. Paper
presented at HERDSA annual international conference, Melbourne.