A validity study of Biggs' three‐factor model of learning approaches: a confirmatory factor analysis employing a Canadian sample

Abstract

A total of 205 high school students (grades 10.1 1.12) with approximately equal numbers of males (N=104; 50.7 percent) and females (N=101; 49.3 percent) responded to the Learning Process Questionnaire. Theresultingdata were fit toathree-factor model of learning motives and strategies that was theoretically derived from Biggs' learning process model and based on some previous empirical evidence. The resulting fit of the data to the model was very good (comparative fit index = .97; residual mean s q v = .17), thus providing strong support for the proposed model. It is concluded that three +ic motives (surface, deep, achieving) and three basic strategies (surface, deep, achieving) indeed i d e n a the three theoretically proposed endogenous approaches of surface, deep and achieving.The efficacy of student learning is determined, in part, by their motivation and their ability to deal with related contextual demands (Shuell 1986;Snowman, 1986). Students who can clearly identify their learning goals, can successfully achieve them and are able to monitor their progress should be more efficacious learners than students who lack these capacities. The degree to which students can fulfil these conditions depends, in part, upon their approach to learning (Biggs, 1985;Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983;Novak & Gowen, 1984). Biggs (1987) has theorised that there are three primary approaches (surface, deep and achieving) which students tend to employ in organising their learning. Moreover, he has proposed that

The unique contribution of learning approaches to academic performance, after controlling for IQ and personality: Are there gender differences?

“…The scales of the deep approach showed good homogeneity (see Table 2) as measured using Cronbach's alpha, while the scales measuring the surface approach revealed somewhat lower alphas. There is empirical evidence showing good validity for the LPQ-scale, supporting the hierarchical structure of learning approaches (Andrews, Violato, Rabb, & Hollingsworth, 1994).…”

An Analysis of the Relationship Between the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire and the Learning Process Questionnaire

“…Associated with each learning approach is a motive (intrinsic/extrinsic) and strategy resulting in six subscales. Applications of the LPQ in three major cultural groups-Western (Andrews, Violato, Rabb & Hollingsworth, 1994;Biggs, 1987;Watkins, 1982), Asian (Biggs, 1992, Kember & Leung, 1998Sachs & Gao, 2000;Watkins, Dong, & Xia 1995;Wong, Lin, & Watkins, 1996), and African Watkins & Mboya, 1997;Watkins, Akande, & Mpofu, 1994) have shown it to be a reliable and valid instrument, too.…”

College Students' Study Strategies as a Function of Testing: An Investigation into Metacognitive Self-Regulation

“…Assessing construct validity, Biggs (1978) used a principal components factor analysis and identified three factors corresponding to the surface, achieving, and deep approaches to studying. Andrews, Violato, Rabb, and Hollingsworth (1994) also found support for the construct validity of scores from the three scales using a confirmatory factor analytic approach resulting in a comparative fit index of .97. Biggs (1987) reported alpha coefficients for the surface-strategies scale ranging from .51 to .69 and for the deep-strategies scale ranging from .60 to .75.…”