Differential Use of Study Approaches by Students of Different Achievement Levels

Abstract

This study examined similarities and differences in study approaches reported by general chemistry students performing at different achievement levels. The study population consisted of freshmen enrolled in a required year-long general chemistry course at the U.S. Naval Academy. Students in the first and second semesters of the course were surveyed using a modified version of the published Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students (ASSIST) referred to as the M-ASSIST (Modified Approaches and Study Skills Inventory). Responses to items associated with using deep or surface approaches to studying were examined for students of three achievement levels (A/B, C, and D/F course grades) using both ANOVA and Structured Means Modeling to look for differences in study approaches between achievement levels. Results show that, with only 12 items, the M-ASSIST can be used to measure differences in reported use of deep and surface approaches by students in different achievement groups; that Structured Means Modeling can uncover significant differences that are not apparent with an ANOVA analysis of the same data; and that A/B and D/F students can be classified as reporting using either using primarily deep (A/B students) or primarily surface (D/F) study approaches. C students reported study approaches characteristic of both the A/B and D/F groups, leading to the interpretation that C students may be in an intermediate and possibly transitional state between the higher- and lower-grade groups. These results suggest a new understanding of C students as those who may not fully implement deep approaches to studying but, in general, demonstrate less reliance on surface approaches than lower-achieving students.

Using Students’ Concept-building Tendencies to Better Characterize Average-Performing Student Learning and Problem-Solving Approaches in General Chemistry

“…We recruited all eight exemplar learners and eight of the abstraction learners, with the goal that five or six from each group would participate. For the abstraction learners, we selected the eight recruits by 1) selecting all of the female abstraction learners, a total of three (seven of eight exemplar learners were female), and 2) selecting five of the eight males based on responses to another survey measure (Modified Approaches and Study Skills Inventory [M-ASSIST]), which is a self-report of students' use of deep-and surface-learning strategies (Bunce et al, 2017). We selected these males to obtain the broadest range of M-ASSIST patterns among abstraction learners.…”

Improving Student Success by Incorporating Instant-Feedback Questions and Increased Proctoring in Online Science and Mathematics Courses

“…Since Biggs's (1987) seminal work, there has been significant discussion of how students perform differentially according to whether they take a deep (attempting to generalize and make connections between different types of work) or a surface (use of rote memorization and achieving tasks based on simple reproduction and replication) approach. Students' use of deep learning strategies has been correlated with student performance in chemistry (Bunce et al, 2017;Lastusaari et al, 2019) and mathematics (Rekabdar & Soleymani, 2010). This is supported by Renkl's (1997) finding that students who are able to generalize what they learn from presented examples to principles required to solve associated problems, rather than simply following the example passively, have greater overall learning gains.…”

Students’ Approaches to Studying through a Situative Lens

“…They tend to learn the material in an ad hoc manner as needed for an exam or assessment (Biggs, 2003). The deep approach often correlates with better learning outcomes, such as ability to explain the material, as well as higher course grades (Asikainen et al, 2013;Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983;Bunce et al, 2017;Trigwell & Prosser, 1991).…”

“…There is a rich literature relating students' learning outcomes to how they approach learning (Bunce et al, 2017;Case & Marshall, 2004;De Clercq et al, 2013;Ellis & Bliuc, 2019;Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983;Marton & Säljö, 1976;Trigwell & Prosser, 1991;Tudor, 2013). Taking a cognitive perspective, most studies presume that the approach is an inherent characteristic of the individual learner.…”