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

Abstract

This study investigates the relationship between learning approach and outcome for distance and on-campus first-year biology students. It uses a topic-specific version of the Study Process Questionnaire, recent articulations of the Structure of Observed Learning Outcome (SOLO) model and individual interviews. Deep approaches were related to better quality SOLO categories of learning outcomes, but many students appeared to adopt a mix of surface and deep approaches to learning, or used little of either, and demonstrated poor quality learning outcomes. A strong approach/outcome relationship was not evident for the younger on-campus cohort. It is argued that these results highlight the need to look beyond learning approaches towards more multidimensional and integrative perspectives of student learning. IntroductionDecades of evidence support a relationship between the approach students take to their learning and their learning outcomes, but the hegemony of deep and surface has attracted criticism (Haggis, 2003;Webb, 1997), partly for its limited relevance in a mass tertiary system. This suggests the need for continued scrutiny of these concepts, particularly given the rapid pace of change in the tertiary sector and developments in teaching and learning research. This article, accordingly, explores the relationship between learning approaches and outcomes and the utility of these concepts. After briefly reviewing pertinent literature on learning approaches, outcomes and their relationship, it will describe findings of a study in a blended distance and face-toface first-year biology unit and argue the need to look beyond deep and surface in exploring context-appropriate quality assurance and pedagogical strategies in the current higher education system.

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.…”

Analysis of student learning outcomes’ standards in lecturers in the perspective of a disruptive era

“…In the context of the life-based learning curriculum with the principle transfer of learning, the standard aspects of learning outcomes are crucial in determining the learning success of learners (Shirazi, 2017). In previous research, a variety of student learning approaches towards achieving multidimensional and integrated learning outcomes during the lecture process were stated as a form of achieving learning outcomes (Quinn & Stein, 2013).. The results of the analysis of the combination of learning and teaching strategies are also useful in achieving learning targets (Delany et al, 2016).…”

Students’ learning patterns and learning spaces in higher education: an empirical investigation in China

“…Considerable effort has been expended on understanding and theorising student learning. Examples of different perspectives include approaches to learning (Biggs, 1993;Marton & Säljö, 1976;Quinn & Stein, 2013), conceptions of learning (Entwistle & Peterson, 2004;Van Rossum & Hamer, 2010), learning styles (Kolb, 1981), metacognition (Flavell, 1987), learning orientations (Beaty, Gibbs, & Morgan, 1997), and situated learning (Aydede & Robbins, 2009;Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989). Some well-claimed conceptual frameworks include Entwistle and Peterson's (2004) framework that covers a variety of influences on high-quality learning, or the Teaching for Understanding framework developed by Project Zero at Harvard (Wiske, 1998).…”