Discriminant Analysis of Study Strategies Connected With College Grade Success in Different Major Fields

Abstract

A study techniques questionnaire was administered to 538 students enrolled in upper division college classes. Multivariate analysis of variance was employed to compare the centroids of questionnaire responses of students in four major fields who had above and below average grades. There were significant differences in group centroids for the comparison between major fields and between grade levels. There was no significant interaction. The major differences between students with above and below average grades appeared to be reflected in “clerical diligence” and cognitive “activity.” Successful students were not only more diligent in their study habits, but also more likely to transform actively scholastic information. For the comparison of major field groups, two discriminant functions were significant. One function seemed to reflect mathematical‐logical thinking while the other reflected “applied‐subjective” thinking. The major field groups formed a science‐nonscience continuum on the first function but not on the second.

Dimensions of Study Behaviour: Another Look at Ati

“…Success in Science was unrelated to either strategy: the most important predictor here was prior mastery in the content area concerned. Goldman and Warren (1973) found that while students in different subject areas could be discriminated in terms of ' pure ' versus ' applied ' interests, no differences between high and low performers in different faculties could be found with respect to study behaviours per se. Two approaches to study, ' diligence ' and ' cognitive activity ' (the latter corresponds to Biggs's transformational strategy) discriminated between good and poor performers but irrespective of their faculty orientation.…”

Learning strategies and self-efficacy as predictors of academic performance: a preliminary study

“…Previous researchers clearly demonstrate that one of the important predictors of students' academic performance is the study strategies or motives (Allen et al, 1972;Goldman & Warren, 1973;Biggs, 1976;Gadzella & Williamson, 1984;Caballos & Esteban, 1988;Entwistle, 1998;Weinstein et al, 2000;Yip & Chung, 2002, 2005Diseth & Martinsen, 2003;Yip, 2007Yip, , 2009. For example, from their research study, Allen et al (1972), based on the self-reported studying behaviours of students, found that time management is a good predictor of the academic performance (grade-point average, GPA) of students.…”

Development of a Self-Report Inventory for Assessing Individual Differences in Learning Processes

“…Much of this research has been done in the applied areas of teaching and counseling. With the exception of a few studies (e.g., Biggs, 1970;Goldman & Warren, 1973), many of the applied studies have mainly employed personality, attitudinal, and cognitive style measures (e.g., Cowell & Entwistle, 1971;Cropley & Field, 1969). After reviewing the research in this area, Shearer (1969, 1971) have concluded that learning style assessed from a behavioral-process orientation is more likely to be useful than one based purely on a personality-or cognitive-style orientation.…”