Learning in First-Year Biology: Approaches of Distance and On-Campus Students

Abstract

This paper aims to extend previous research into learning of tertiary biology, by exploring the learning approaches adopted by two groups of students studying the same first-year biology topic in either on-campus or off-campus "distance" modes. The research involved 302 participants, who responded to a topic-specific version of the Study Process Questionnaire, and in-depth interviews with 16 of these students. Several quantitative analytic techniques, including cluster analysis and Rasch differential item functioning analysis, showed that the younger, on-campus cohort made less use of deep approaches, and more use of surface approaches than the older, off-campus group. At a finer scale, clusters of students within these categories demonstrated different patterns of learning approach. Students' descriptions of their learning approaches at interview provided richer complementary descriptions of the approach they took to their study in the topic, showing how deep and surface approaches were manifested in the study context. These findings are critically analysed in terms of recent literature questioning the applicability of learning approaches theory in mass education, and their implications for teaching and research in undergraduate biology.

Relationships between learning approaches and outcomes of students studying a first-year biology topic on-campus and by distance

“…This paper, therefore, focuses on exploring the nature of the approaches/outcomes relationship using the recent two-learning-cycle version of SOLO for on-and offcampus students studying the same introductory biology topic. The paper extends and interrelates the specifics of the students' learning approaches and outcomes that have been reported elsewhere as independent themes (Quinn, 2011;Quinn et al, 2009).…”

“…This section first outlines the procedures used to establish the separate learning approach and outcome variables, with further details available in Quinn (2011) and Quinn and colleagues (2009). These, then, form the basis for subsequent analysis of the relationship between approach and outcome, to explore the questions at the focus of this paper.…”

“…Of the four main clusters for on-campus 620 F. Quinn and S. Stein students, one cluster showed a surface approach (low-deep relative to high-surface scores). The remaining clusters for both cohorts showed students adopting aspects of both approaches to learning more evenly (mixed approaches), and in some cases with scores very low on both approaches (for further details see Quinn, 2011). Low scores on both deep and surface motives and strategies suggest that the students were not motivated at the time either to reproduce detail or to understand and, consequently, were not really deploying any particular study strategies.…”

Adaptive quizzes to increase motivation, engagement and learning outcomes in a first year accounting unit

“…The narrow range of demographic data available is a limitation to this study as it does not capture the diversity that may exist in a group of students studying online, or the differences between the demographics of on-campus and fully-online students (Johnson, 2015). For example, online students tend to be older (Quinn & Stein, 2013) and are more likely to be female than on-campus students (Quinn, 2011). The responses should therefore be viewed with a degree of caution, as the low response rate may indicate a bias present in the cohort of students responding.…”

Older Women, Deeper Learning: Age and Gender Interact to Predict Learning Approach and Academic Achievement at University

“…Although this research represents the first that we are aware of to compare the learning approaches of distance learners versus on-campus students, neither study was designed to do so. Students who are distance learners tend to be older and are more likely to be female, a factor we have explicitly modelled in both datasets (Ke and Xie, 2009;Quinn, 2009). These student groups also differ in ways that we did not measure.…”