The study explores the relationships between students' experiences of the teaching-learning environment and their approaches to learning, and the effects of these variables on academic achievement. Two three-stage models were tested with structural equation modelling techniques. The Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students (ASSIST) and the Experiences of Teaching and Learning Questionnaire (ETLQ) were used to assess approaches to learning and student's experiences of the teaching-learning environment, respectively. These two constructs were then used as either first-or second-stage variables within the path analysis. The model using approaches to learning as a mediating variable showed the best fit with our data; variations in our students' experiences of the teaching-learning environment appear to give rise to their approaches to studying, which subsequently affect their achievement. The deep approach shows no detectable influence on academic achievement in this sample, neither there are any direct effects of experiences of the teaching-learning environment on it. The indirect effects of these experiences on achievement, acting through the strategic and the surface approaches, are related to two aspects of the teaching-learning environment only, namely congruence and coherence in course organisation, and integrative learning and critical thinking. The finding of a reciprocal relation between approaches to learning and experiences of the teaching-learning environment supports previous conclusions about the association between these constructs. The indirect effect of experiences of the teaching-learning environment on achievement, acting through approaches to learning, shows those approaches as a dynamic construct that varies in line with experiences of the teaching-learning environment, and so influences achievement.

The present study explores associations between defense styles, approaches to learning, students' preferences for different types of courses/teaching and achievement. The psychometric properties of the Defense Style Questionnaire (DSQ-40), used for assessing students' defense styles, are also explored. Participants in this study were undergraduates (N = 425) studying in a social science department. The Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students (ASSIST) is used for exploring students' approaches to learning, while Grade Point Average (GPA) measured students' academic achievement. The study suggests the contribution of defense styles to the Student Learning Research; it reports a mature and an immature learning pattern. Deep and strategic approaches to learning, preferences for classes that support understanding and GPA are associated with a mature defense style, whereas surface approach and preferences for classes that transmit information are associated with immature, image-distorting and neurotic defense styles. Defense styles as well as preferences for different courses appear to act as antecedents of approaches to learning; approaches mediate the effect of defenses and preferences on achievement although defenses have only a small impact. The study also suggests a four factor structure of the DSQ-40 in undergraduates. The findings are discussed in the context of the recent literature.

No abstract

No abstract

The relationship between university students' approaches to learning and preference for the open-and closed-book examinations was investigated for 144 Greek undergraduate (56 third-and 88 fourth-year) students attending a Philosophy, Education and Psychology Department. The approaches were explored by the Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students (ASSIST). Examination preferences for open-or closedbook exams were assessed by 3 self-report questions. Students who preferred the open-book examination scored lower on "Time management", "Achieving", and "Unrelated memorising". The study provides links between the students' study orchestrations/profiles, assessment preference, and achievement. The deep profile students (mainly 3rd-year students) seem to prefer the open-book exam but appear unorganised in their study in a similar extent to surface-profile students. They also reported low achievement. The study cautiously suggests the influence of the year of study on students' assessment preference. The results are discussed in relation to recent literature.