A Computer Assisted Intervention on Learning Strategies
AbstractThe objective of this study, in the Student Approaches to Learning (SAL) perspective, was to test a computer-assisted intervention that seeks to promote awareness and self-regulation of learning strategies, aiming at improving the quality of learning. The intervention involved the use, by a sample of higher education students, of purposely developed interactive software – the PAE v.1 - which basically allows users to self-assess, recognize and self-regulate learning strategies. Pre- and post-intervention measures of the learning process and product were compared, both in general and individually, according to the experimental methodology. The results suggest that the intensive implementation of the intervention was effective in generally increasing a deep learning strategy and, in some cases, reducing a surface strategy and increasing an achieving strategy, but not significantly enough under these conditions, to improve the quality of learning. It is suggested a way of using the intervention procedure to achieve such an improvement. Keywords: interactive learning environments; multimedia/hypermedia systems; post-secondary education; teaching/learning strategies
AK, S. (2011). The effects of computer supported problem based learning on students’approaches to learning. Current Issues in Education, 14(1). Retrieved 30-4-2015 from http://cie.asu.edu/ojs/index.php/cieatasu/article/view/712
Bailey, P., Catchpole, R. & Smart, J. (1997). Skills shop – A learning skills package. Plymouth: University of Plymouth.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bran, C. N. (2014). Strategies for developing a deep approach of learning in higher education. Journal Plus Education, 11(2), 130-140.
Beckwith, J. B. (1991). Approaches to learning, their context and relationship to assessment performance. Higher Education, 22, 17-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02351197
Biggs, J. B. (1984). Learning strategies, student motivation patterns, and subjectively perceived sucess. In J. R. Kirby (Ed.), Cognitive strategies and educational performance (pp.111-134). Orlando, F.L.: Academic Press.
Biggs, J. B. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Melbourne: ACER.
Biggs, J. B. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham: SRHE/Open University Press.
Biggs J. & Collis, K. (1982). Evaluating the Quality of Learning: the SOLO taxonomy. New York: Academic Press.
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, 133–149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/000709901158433
Biggs, J. B. & Kirby, J. R. (1983). Approaches to learning in Universities and CAEs. Vestes, 27(2), 3-9.
Biggs, J. B. & Rihn, B. A. (1984). The effects of intervention on deep and surface approaches to learning. In J. R. Kirby (Ed.), Cognitive strategies and educational performance (pp.279-293). Orlando: Academic Press.
Biggs, J. & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for Quality Learning at University (3rd ed.) Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press
Bloom B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook I: The cognitive domain. New York: David McKay Co. Inc.
Blundell, S. (1995). Should we always be aiming to promote deep approaches to learning? An evaluation of the ISL questionnaire in practice. In G. Gibbs (Ed.), Improving student learning through assessment and evaluation (pp.257-279). Oxford: The Oxford Centre for Staff Development.
Boekaerts, M. (1997). Self-regulated learning: A new concept embraced by researchers, policy makers, educators, teachers and students. Learning & Instruction, 7(2), 161-186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(96)00015-1
Boekaerts, M. & Corno, L. (2005). Self-regulation in the classroom: A perspective on assessment and intervention. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54(2), 199-231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2005.00205.x
Cano, F. (2007). Approaches to learning and study orchestrations in high school students. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 22(2), 131-151. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03173518
Cristhensen, L.B. (2007). Experimental methodology (10th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon
Diseth, A. (2013). Personality as an indirect predictor of academic achievement via student course experience and approach to learning. Social Behavior and Personality, 41(8), 1297-1308. http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2013.41.8.1297
Duarte, A. M. (2007). Conceptions of learning and approaches to learning in Portuguese students. Higher Education, 54, 781-794. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10734-006-9023-7
Duarte, A. M. (2012). Modification of conceptions of and approaches to learning by metacognition and changes in the learning context. In T. Patellis (Ed.). Research Studies, Literature Reviews and Perspectives in Psychological Science (pp. 133-143). Athens: Atiner – Athens Institute for Education and Research.
Entwistle, N. J. (1988). Motivational factors in students' approaches to learning. In R. Schmeck (Ed.), Learning strategies and learning styles (pp.21-51). N.Y.: Plenum.
Entwistle, N. J., Odor, P. & Anderson, C. (1987). Anticipating the experience of higher education through computer simulation. Higher Education, 16, 337-335. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00148974
Entwistle, N. J. & Ramsden, N. (1983). Understanding student learning, London & Camberra: Croom Helm.
Entwistle, N., Tait, H., & McCune, V. (2000). Patterns of response to approaches to studying inventory across contrasting groups and contexts. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 15, 33-48. http://doi.org/cgvfh9
Entwistle, N. J. & Wilson, J.D. (1977). Degrees of exelence: the academic achievement game. London: Hodder & Stoughton.
English, L., Luckett, P. & Mladenovic, R. (2004). Changing the learning environment to promote deep learning approaches in first year accounting students. Accounting Education: An International Journal, 13(4), 461-488.
Flesch, R. (1979). How to write plain English. New York: Harpercollins.
Gibbs, G. (1992). Improving the quality of student learning: theory and practice. Bristol: TES.
Goldberg, M.W. & Salari, S. (1997). An update of WebCT (Word-Wide-Webb Course Tools) - a Tool for the creation of sophisticated web-based learning environments. Paper presented to NAUWeb'9 Flagstaff, Arizona. Dowloaded in 6-4-1999 from
Gunn, C. (1995). Usability and beyond: Evaluating educational effectiveness of computer-based learning. In G. Gibbs (Ed.), Improving student learning through assessment and evaluation (pp.301-315). Oxford: The Oxford Centre for Staff Development.
Kember, D., Jamieson, Q.W. Pomfret, M & Wong, E.T. (1995). Learning approaches, study time and academic performance. Higher Education, 29, 329-43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01384497
Kybby, M., Gunn, C., MacIntyre, R. Gow, A., Granun, G. & Whyte, J. (1995). CLASS - Couseware for learning and study skills. University of Strathclyde – Heriot-Watt University.
Kozéki, B. & Entwistle, N.J. (1987). Interaction between pupil characteristics and school ethos - a review of earlier collaborative work and a proposal for a further comparative study of Hungarian and British schools. Edinburgh: Reports of research in progress - Department of Education, University of Edinburgh
Laurillard, D. (2005). Styles and approaches in problem-solving. In F.Marton, D.Hounsell, N.Entwistle (Eds.), The experience of learning : Implications for teaching and studying in higher education (3rd Ed.) (pp. 126 – 144). Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh, Centre for Teaching, Learning and Assessment.
Liping Chen & Dhillon, J. J. (2012). Deep approaches to learning in improving reading skills: a case study from Yunnan Agricultural University. Theory & Practice In Language Studies, 2(8), 1603-1613. doi:10.4304/tpls.2.8.1603-1613
Marton, F. & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning - I. Outcome and process. Brittish Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4-11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1976.tb02980.x
McCune, V. (1998). Academic development during the first year at university. In C. Rust (Ed.), Improving student learning - Improving students as learners (pp. 354–358). Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff Development.
McCune, V. (1999). Providing learning to learn advice via the WWW. Paper presented at the “6th. Pedactice conference”. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.
Meichenbaum, D. (1977). Cognitive-behavior modification, an integrative approach. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Neuman, S.B. & McCormick S. (1995). Single-subject experimental research: applications for literacy. Newark: IRA.
Newman D. R., Johnson, C., Webb, B. & Cochrane C. (1998). Evaluating the quality of learning in computer supported co-operative learning. Downloaded in 23-5-1999 from http://www.qub.ac.uk/mgt/papers/jasis/jasis.html
Perls, F. (1969). In and out the garbage pail. New York: Bantam Books.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The Role of Goal Orientation in Self-Regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.). Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451-502). San Diego: Academic Press.
Platow, M. J., Mavor, K. I. & Grace, D. M. (2013). On the role of discipline-related self-concept in deep and surface approaches to learning among university students. Instructional Science, 41, 271-285. doi 10.1007/s11251-012-9227-4
Richardson, J. T. E. (2005). Students’ approaches to learning and teachers’ approaches to teaching in higher education, Educational Psychology, 25 (6), 673–680
Richardson, J. T. E. (2007). Variations in student learning and perceptions of academic quality. In N. Entwistle, P. Tomlinson, & J. Dockrell (Eds.), Student learning and university teaching (British Journal of Educational Psychology, Monograph Series II, No. 4) (pp. 61–71). Leicester: The British Psychological Society.
Solomonides, I. & Swanell, M. (1995). Can students learn to change their approach to study? In G. Gibbs (Ed.), Improving student learning through assessment and evaluation (pp. 225-232). Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff Development.
Svensson, L. (1977). On qualitative differences in learning - III.Study skill and learning. Brittish Journal of Educational Psychology, 47, 233-243.
Tait, H., & Entwistle, N. (1996). Identifying students at risk through ineffective study strategies. Higher Education, 31, 97-116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00129109
Trigwell, K. & Prosser, M. (1991). Relating approaches to study and quality of learning outcomes at the course level. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 61, 265-75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1991.tb00984.x
Watkins, D. (1983). Depth of processing and the quality of learning outcomes. Instructional Science, 12, 49-58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00120900
Wilson, S. L. (2000). Single case experimental designs. In G. M. Breakwell,S. Hammond & C. Fife-Schaw (Eds.). Research methods in psychology (pp.60-74). London: Sage
Wilson, K., & Fowler, J. (2005). Assessing the impact of learning environments on students’ approaches to learning: Comparing conventional and action learning designs. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(1), 87–101.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13-39). San Diego: Academic Press.
Zimmerman, B. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 64-70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2
Zimmerman, B. J. & Moylan, A. R. (2009). Self-regulation: Where metacognition and motivation intersect. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 299-315). New York: Routledge.
Zou, L.-H., Li, J., Chen,W.-C., Zhong, M.-L., Wang, Z.-Y. (2014). Relationship between learning quality and learning approaches of high school students on the subject of chemistry. International Conference on Science Education 2012 Proceedings, pp. 163-173. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54365-4_14
Copyright (c) 2018 Antonio Manuel Manuel
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).