HEC Occassional Report 1_ Study Approaches of Students in Pakistan

8/14/2019 HEC Occassional Report 1_ Study Approaches of Students in Pakistan

1/13

Occasional Report 1 December, 2006

Study Approaches of Students in Pakistan:

The Revised two-factor Study Process

Questionnaire Experience

ZARRIN SEEMA SIDDIQUI


2/13

Study Approaches of Students in Pakistan

Occasional Report 1, December 2006

Study Approaches of Students in Pakistan:

The Revised Two-factor Study Process Questionnaire Experience

Author

Siddiqui, Zarrin Seema

Occasional Report

National Academy of Higher Education,

The SPQ project was funded by the National Academy of Higher Education as part of its

Research project.

http://www.hec.gov.pk/li

National Academy of Higher Education

Higher Education Commission

H-8, Kashmir Highway

Islamabad

PAKISTAN

University of Western Australia; 35, Stirling Highway,

Crawley, Perth, AUSTRALIA, WA [email protected]

[email protected]


3/13

Occasional Report 1, December 2006 1

Abstract

A number of cross-cultural studies have looked closely at the study approaches using Biggs Study

Process Questionnaire (SPQ) in various countries worldwide including Asia. We investigated study

approaches of Pakistani students in tertiary institutions using revised version of the questionnaire

(R-SPQ-2F). The sample comprises 13331 students who appeared countrywide at 15 centres for

National Postgraduate Scholarship examination in December 2003. 9,692 (73%) responded. The

psychometric properties of the self reported SPQ support its further use in Pakistan. The results

show that the students predominantly have higher scores on deep approach. No statistically

significant differences were observed on the basis of gender, age and highest qualifications obtained

but differ significantly for various fields of study. The findings are interesting especially in context

of the earlier studies focussing on Asian Students where they are found to be more reliant on rote

memory and exam-oriented learning using surface approaches. In the context of Pakistan it is even

more interesting because the curriculum, teaching strategies and assessment are still based on

traditional models. One possible explanation may be the influence of technology on the learning

process. With the advent of internet and open access to educational material the student is no more

looking at teacher for all the answers. This may imply that the geographical distinction definingstudents as Asian or else needs to be re- examined as net generation enters tertiary education.

.

Keywords: study approaches, students, higher education, developing countries, approaches tolearning, Pakistan


4/13



Introduction

The quality of learning at university is influenced by a number of variables including approaches to

learning and studying (Entwistle et al., 2002). Approaches to learning are the strategies which

learners adopt in order to succeed at learning. The term 'approach' is used to signify both the

learner's intention and the way in which s/he processes information(Garrison et al., 1995) . There is

general agreement that there are two fundamental approaches to learning: deep and surface which

originated from the research initiated in 1970s(Marton and Saljo, 1976). Students who assume a

deep approach to their learning are intrinsically motivated and search for meaning by integrating

new information into existing knowledge. On the other hand, surface learners are extrinsically

motivated (largely by grades) and have a reproductive conception of learning.

Later another dimension was added to the approaches which were strategic or achieving(Enwistle

and Ramsden, 1983, Biggs, 1987). Students who adopt the strategic approach intend to achieve the

highest grades through effective time management, organised study methods and an awareness of

assessment methods.A number of instruments have been developed and validated to assess these

approaches. Study Process Questionnaire is one of the instruments developed and initially used inAustralia, which assessed the approaches on three above-mentioned dimensions. The theoretical

framework for the SPQ is a model based on the interrelationships between the personal

characteristics of the students, the situational constraints in which they found themselves, their

approaches to learning and the outcomes of that learning i.e. 3 P (Presage, Process and Product)

Model. Later in 2000 the questionnaire was revised with only two scales measuring deep and

surface approaches (Biggs et al., 2001).

Cross cultural studies have looked closely at the validation and study approaches using SPQ in

various countries including those in Asia (Ling et al., 2004, Watkins and Akande, 1992, Oneill and

Child, 1984, Kember and Gow, 1990). In one study conducted in Australia that looked at the

perceptions of learning problems by the academic staff it was noted that overseas students generallyrely more on memorising chunks of information and facts to pass through examinations. In the

same study a faculty member from Veterinary Sciences has commented that students from Pakistan

require more direction and are less self-firing than Australians.(Samuelowicz, 1987). Similarly

some other studies have reported similar observations about Asian students (Biggs, 1989, Biggs,

1990, Ballard and Clanchy, 1984). This has led to the emergence of a stereotype profile of Asian

student as a group that is;

respectful of the lecturers authority

diligent note taker

preoccupied with fulfilling the expectations of the lecturers

uncritical of information presented in the text book and by the lecturers reluctant to ask questions or volunteer to contribute in group discussions

However research has not been clearly able to demonstrate strong evidence in support of this

profile. This profile is argued in an observational study of the participation of local and South East

Asian students (Renshaw and Volet, 1995). In another study a locally developed inventory was used

to explore the learning approaches and difficulties of Nepalese and Indian students in dental

sciences and the Indian students scored higher on motivation, interest and deep processing (Mayya

et al., 2002).


5/13



Yet, no studies have been reported from Pakistan that could provide an insight into the study

approaches in this region. A literature search could identify a couple of studies which include one

unpublished thesis that has found positive correlation between academic performance of secondary

school students and study attitudes using a locally developed instrument (Sarwar, 2004). Another

study has looked at the learning approaches using Kolbs inventory among medical students (Naqvi

and Ahmed, 2000).

This study is therefore first attempt in Pakistan to investigate what study approaches are usedamong students in tertiary education using R-SPQ -2F.

Purpose of the study

1. To establish the psychometric properties of Revised two-factor Study ProcessQuestionnaire: R-SPQ-2Ffor use in Pakistan

2. To identify the approaches to study among tertiary students in Pakistan.3. To explore any significant differences in the study approaches on the basis of gender,

fields of study, age and level of education.

Method

Sample

The sample included participants in the National Scholarship Examination conducted by Higher

Education Commission for the award of indigenous postgraduate scholarships. The eligibility to

appear in the examination requires an undergraduate degree and age below 40 yearsi

with no third

division (less than 45% of total marks) in the academic career. Only one second division is allowed

(between 45 and 60% of total marks).

Instruments

Approaches to study are assessed using theRevised Two-factor

Study Process Questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F, a scale developed by

Biggs et al (2001) consisting of 20 items on a 5 point Likert

Scale. The two approaches are Deep Approach and Surface

Approach each containing two sub scales, Motive and Strategy.

Each subscale has five items for a sum of ten items per study

approach.

A short questionnaire was also designed to elicit demographic

information from participants.

Procedure

Initially the questionnaire was administered to a group of

eighteen graduates from different universities. The same was re

administered to the group after an interval of four weeks. The

test retest reliability of the instrument was 0.82.

Following the pilot study the test was administered at a wider

scale. The National Scholarship Examination in Dec 2003 was

conducted at 15 centres across Pakistan simultaneously

Table 1 Profile of the Respondents

Number (%)

Sample

Respondents

13331

9692 (72.7)

Male

Female

8078 (83)

1614 (17)

Qualifications

Graduate

Masters

MPhil

PhD

1460 (15)

7846 (82)

241 (02)

145 (01)Age

25 yrs or less

26 30 yrs

31 35 yrs.

36 40 yrs.

Above 40 yrs

3500 (36)

3604 (38)

1693 (17)

895 (09)

12 (0.1)


6/13



including Azad Jammu & Kashmir. The demographic questionnaire with R-SPQ -2F was

distributed to all the participants at the end of examination. The participation was voluntary.

Analysis

The data was analysed using SPSS version12.0 for Windows. Of the total 13,338 students who

appeared in the examination, 9,692 participantscompleted the Questionnaire and relevant demographic data and hence were included in this study.

The profile of respondents is given in Table 1.

Results

Reliability

Cronbachs alpha for internal consistency of the 20 items was 0.747. The internal consistency of the

two scales Surface Approach and Deep Approach, each having ten items was 0.734 and 0.759

respectively. An alpha coefficients over 0.70 is considered to be adequate for instruments used for

general assessment (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994). The reliability indices for four subscales is alsocalculated and are almost identical to the reliability coefficients in earlier study (Biggs et al., 2001,

Peng and Bettens, 2002, Leung and Chan, 2001)(Table 2).

Correlations

The correlations between the two approaches and their subscales are given in Table 3. The two

main constructs DA and SA are negatively related as expected while there has been positive

correlation between motive and strategy subscales within each construct.

Table 2 Reliability Coefficient for the Scales and Subscales

Scales & Subscales Cronbach alpha valueBiggs et al

(2001)

Leung & Chan

(2001)

Current

study

Deep Approach 0.73 0.76 0.75

Deep Motive 0.62 0.61 0.58

Deep Strategy 0.63 0.63 0.63

Surface Approach 0.64 0.73 0.73

Surface Motive 0.72 0.59 0.59

Surface Strategy 0.57 0.58 0.58

Table3 Pearson product moment correlations between scales and

subscales of the Revised SPQ

DeepMotive DeepStrategic SurfaceApproach SurfaceMotive SurfaceStrategic

DeepApproach

.873(**) .878(**) -.015 -.075(**) .041(**)

DeepMotive

.534(**) -.032(**) -.094(**) .030(**)

DeepStrategic

.005 -.038(**) .042(**)

SurfaceApproach

.860(**) .891(**)

SurfaceMotive

.533(**)

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). N=9692


7/13



Table 4: Factor loadings for the R-SPQ

Items SurfaceApproach

Deep Approach

one .496

two .389

three .432

four .320

five .450

six .579

seven .587

eight .406

nine .473

ten .525

eleven .612

twelve .482

thirteen .496

fourteen .624fifteen .671

sixteen .543

seventeen .515

eighteen .537

nineteen .533

twenty .507

Table 5 Total Variance Explained

Component Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Rotation

Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total

1 3.542 17.710 17.710

2 2.751 13.755 31.465

3 1.071 5.354 36.819

4 1.001 5.005 41.824

5 .904 4.518 46.342

6 .881 4.407 50.749

7 .846 4.231 54.979

8 .812 4.058 59.037

9 .775 3.876 62.913

10 .765 3.824 66.737

11 .750 3.751 70.488

12 .732 3.661 74.148

13 .716 3.579 77.727

14 .693 3.464 81.192

15 .680 3.399 84.591

16 .650 3.251 87.842

17 .648 3.242 91.084

18 .617 3.083 94.167

19 .586 2.930 97.096

20 .581 2.904 100.000

3.542

2.751

17.710

13.755

17.710

31.465

2.484

2.279


8/13



Maximum likelihood factor analysis with an Oblimin rotation was conducted. The factor loading

criteria was set at 0.3. Two dominant factors were observed. All items loading on Factor 1 were

surface approach items and those on Factor 2 were deep approach items. (Table 4). The final result

indicates that these two factors account for more than 31% of the variance. (Table5)

Approaches to study

The Mean scores for Deep Approach and Surface approach with their subscales are given in Table

6. The students in this sample have predominantly deep approach towards learning. Creative Arts

and Health Sciences have highest score on deep approach but the proportion of students in Creative

Arts group is fairly small and constitutes only 0.1 percent of the whole sample.

Table 6 Field of Study and Mean Scores on each Scale and sub Scale

DA DM DS SA SM SSField of Study N (%)

Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)

Creative Arts 08 (0.1) 37.95 (5.2) 18.95 (4.2) 19.00 (3.3) 17.14 (4.4) 7.57 (2.1) 9.57 (2.7)

Chemical Sciences 795 (8.3) 37.92 (6.2) 18.99 (3.5) 18.93 (3.6) 21.92 (6.9) 9.49 (3.6) 12.43 (4.2)

Computing and

Mathematics

1848 (19.1) 37.21 (6.5) 18.70 (3.6) 18.50 (3.7) 21.82 (6.9) 9.72 (3.7) 12.09 (4.0)

Humanities & Social

Sciences

1397 (14.4) 37.72 (6.5) 18.91 (3.6) 18.80 (3.7) 21.41 (6.9) 9.42 (3.7) 11.99 (4.1)

Economics &

Commerce

647 (6.7) 37.37 (5.9) 18.69 (3.4) 18.68 (3.4) 21.86 (6.8) 9.6 (3.6) 12.22 (4.1)

Education 260 (2.7) 36.5 ( 6.9) 18.07 (3.9) 18.42 (3.7) 22.08 (6.7) 9.83 (3.6) 12.25 (4. 9)

Engineering 1007 (10.4) 36.95 (6.2) 18.60 (3.4) 18.35 (3.5) 21.15 (6.7) 9.29 (3.5) 11.86 (4.0)

Health Sciences 285 (2.9) 37.95 (6.2) 19.36 (3.3) 18.59 (3.7) 21.85 (6.3) 9.28 (3.4) 12.57 (3.8)

Law 25 (0.3) 37.92 (5.5) 19.20 (2.8) 18.7 (3.6) 17.92 (4.7) 8.28 (2.9) 9.64 (3.2)

Life Sciences 1014 (10.5) 37.72 (6.1) 18.97 (3.4) 18.74 (3.6) 21.99 (6.8) 9.57 (3.7) 12.41 (4.0)

Management

Sciences

534 (5.5) 37.18 (6.4) 18.58 (3.6) 18.59 (3.5) 20.87 (6.4) 9.32 (3.4) 11.54 (3.9)

Natural and

Agricultural

Sciences

1054 (10.9) 36.98 (6.5) 18.42 (3.8) 18.55 (3.7) 22.73 (6.6) 9.83 (3.5) 12.90 (4.0)

Physical Sciences 818 (8.4) 37.40 (6.4) 18.65 (3.6) 18.74 (3.8) 21.93 (6.7) 9.45 (3.7) 12.47 (4.0)

Total 9692 37.37 (6.4) 18.73 (3.6) 18.63 (3.6) 21.77 (6.8) 9.54 (3.6) 12.22 (4.1)


9/13



Study Approaches and Fields of Study

ANOVA tests were performed to explore if mean scores of different study approaches for all the

fields of study were equal (Table 7). Creative arts and law group was not included in the analysis

because their proportion was very small. Significant differences were observed on all sub scales

(Table 6) To identify these differences Tukey HSD procedure was used (described elsewhere).

Relationship between various variables

There were no statistically significant differences on any of the scales on the basis of gender, age

and level of qualification.

Table 7 Mean differences between fields of study on approaches to study

Sum ofSquares

df Mean Square F Sig.

DA Between Groups

Within GroupsTotal

1236.262

394898.78396135.05

10

96489658

123.626

40.931

3.020 .001**

DM Between GroupsWithin GroupsTotal

518.213126259.27126777.48

1096489658

51.82113.087

3.960 .000***

DS Between GroupsWithin GroupsTotal

269.174131153.75131422.93

1096489658

26.91713.594

1.980 .031*

SA Between GroupsWithin GroupsTotal

2086.545446937.22449023.76

1096489658

208.65546.324

4.504 .000***

SM Between GroupsWithin GroupsTotal

310.549129514.90129825.45

1096489658

31.05513.424

2.313 .010**

SS Between GroupsWithin GroupsTotal

1127.354162616.10163743.46

1096489658

112.73516.855

6.689 .000***

*p


10/13



There are no statistically significant differences on the basis of gender. Gender differences are also

not reported in literature but again it is an area to investigate because there are differences in rearing

practices, schooling and opportunities for both genders in Pakistan. There were no differences on

the basis of age and highest qualification obtained.

The learning approach is influenced by the learners perception and interpretation of the learning

context i.e. teaching, assessment, curriculum and nature of learning tasks (Saljo, 1982). In Pakistan

the teaching practices are still based on the traditional models of teacher centred learning specially

in public institutions. The assessment and examination system do not take into account higher

cognitive skills but are more inclined towards the reproduction of facts. Therefore the prevalent

learning environment may not be contributing towards the deep approaches. One explanation for no

differences can be the homogeneity of the sample. Although the sample is fairly large these are

actually the students who have been relatively high achievers because of the eligibility conditions

for the scholarship.

The other explanation may be the influence of technology on this group of learners, which is

commonly called as Net -generation. Net- generation is the first generation born between 1977 -

1997 surrounded by home computers, video games and the Internet (Leung, 2004). In our sample

74% of the respondents belong to this group. The Internet has given this generation a new

orientation to space and time. They use the internet for play, learning, communicating, and

shopping. When playing they use free-form thinking and multiple forms of intelligence in their

interaction with ideas and images. Socioeconomic class, gender differences, and personal

characteristics do not figure into the digital play equation or into virtual communities(Tapscott,

1998).

This means that the learning capabilities of this group are different from earlier groups of learners.There is less reliance on teacher to provide answers. Students are free to explore and learn by

discovery and in doing so the ability to synthesize large amounts of information is being developed.

So even if the whole education system is not favouring the student centred learning there may be a

paradigm shift among the learners who have intrinsic motivation to learn.

Conclusion

Student learning is a challenging process dependent on a number of variables both at the learners

and institution level. This study examined the study approaches of students n Pakistan using R-

SPQ-2F.

The psychometric properties of the Revised two-factor Study Process Questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F

supports its use among Pakistani students. It is encouraging to see that students have a deep

approach. This gives rise to another important factor in higher education and that is the ability of

faculty to understand differences in students learning and skills to develop and maintain deep

approaches. Higher Education Commission Pakistan realizing this need has already initiated

nationwide faculty development programs for teaching and learning in higher education since 2003

initially through the Department of Learning Innovation followed by establishing National

Academy of Higher Education in 2004.


11/13



This study can be replicated on regular intervals to examine the trends closely within Pakistan and

other Asian countries. Further studies may explore the effect of technology as a contributing factor

on developing deep approach through more studies. It may also be time to re examine if there is a

need to eliminate the geographic boundaries defining a student as Asian or else when whole world

is now viewed as a global village.

Limitation

The population of the study can be regarded as a homogenous group due the eligibility

requirements of the scholarship examination and this can limit the generalisability of findings to all

the students.

One other limitations of this study is inability to distinguish study approaches among regular and

externalii

students because this variable was not taken into account while designing the

demographic questionnaire.

Acknowledgment

National Academy of Higher Education, a project of Higher Education Commission (HEC),Pakistan, provided funding for this study. The author highly acknowledges the support provided by

Dr. Sohail H Naqvi, the Executive Director, HEC. Thanks are also due to Sohail Ghani of National

Testing Service for administration, Naveed Shah for statistical support and to Fiona Lake and Gina

Arena for reviewing the manuscript. Finally author acknowledges support of all the respondents

who participated in this study.

Notes on Contributor

Dr. Zarrin S Siddiqui (MBBS, MCPS(Psychiatry), MEd Studies) is associated with the University

of Western Australia, Perth. At the time of the study she was serving as the Director General,

Learning Innovations and National Academy of Higher Education at Higher Education CommissionPakistan


12/13



References

1. Ballard, B. and Clanchy, J. (1984) Study Abroad: a manual for Asian students, Longmans,

Kuala Lumpur.

2. Biggs, J. (1987) Student Approaches to Learning and Studying, Australian Council for

Educational Research, Camberwell.

3. Biggs, J. (Ed.) (1989)Approaches to learning in two cultures,In Teaching and Learning Styles

Within and Across Cultures: Implications for Language Pedagogy.Bicley, V. (Ed.). Hong Kong

Institute for Language in Education.

4. Biggs, J. (1990) Asian students' approaches to learning: implications for teaching overseas

students EighthAustralasian Tertiary Learning Skills and Language Conference. Brisbane

5. Biggs, J., Kember, D. and Leung, D. (2001) The Revised Two Factor Study Process

Questionnaire: R-SPQ - 2F,British Journal of Educational Psychology,71, 133 - 149.

6. Entwistle, N., McCune, V. and Hounsell, J. (2002)Approaches to Studying and Perceptions

of University Teaching-Learning Environments: Concepts, Measures and Preliminary

Findings Enhancing Teaching-Learning Environments in Undergraduate Courses Project

7. Enwistle, N. and Ramsden, P. (1983) Understanding Student Learning., Croom Helm,

London.

8. Garrison, R., Andrews, J. and Magnusson, K. (1995) Approaches to teaching and learningin higher education (Herrington, R.) accessed online 23

rdMay,2005

http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/Newsletters/Currents/Vol2.1/approaches.html

9. Kember, D. and Gow, L. (1990) Cultural specificity of approaches to study, British Journal

Of Educational Psychology,60, 356 - 363.

10.Leung, L. (2004) Net-Generation attributes and seductive properties of the internet as

predictors of online activities and internet addiction, CyberPsychology & Behavior,7, 333 -

348.

11.Leung, M.-T. and Chan, K.-W. (2001) Construct validity and psychometric properties of the

Revised Two- factor Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F) in the Hong Kong context.

(AARE 2001) Melbourne Australian Association for Research in Education

12.Ling, P., Arger, G., Pallant, J., Chua, H. and Yi, C. (2004) Study processes of Malaysian

students in Malaysia and in Australia In Transforming knowledge into wisdom: holistic

approaches to teaching and learning Miri, Sarawak Higher Education Research and

Development Society of Australasia


13/13



13.Marton, F. and Saljo, R. (1976) On qualitative differences in learning. I- Outcome and

process,British Journal of Educational Psychology,46, 4 -11.

14.Mayya, S., Rao, A. and Ramnarayan, K. (2002) Learning approaches and learning

difficulties: a comparison of Indian and Nepali dental science students, J Dent Educ.,66,

1297-1302.

15.Naqvi, Z. and Ahmed, R. (2000) Learning approaches and academic performance of

undergraduate medical students in Pakistan, Journal of Pakistan Medical Association,50,

20 -25.

16.Nunnally, J. and Bernstein, I. (1994) Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York.

17.Oneill, M. and Child, D. (1984) Biggs' SPQ: A British study of its Internal Structure,British

Journal Of Educational Psychology,54, 228 - 234.

18.Peng, L. and Bettens, R. (2002)NUS Students and Biggs Learning Process Questionnaire

Singapore CDTL Brief, 5 (7), accessed online 20th

May, 2005

http://www.cdtl.nus.edu.sg/brief/v5n7/sec2.htm

19.Renshaw, P. and Volet, S. (1995) South East Asian Students' at Australian Universities: A

Reappraisal of their Tutorial Participation and Approaches to Study, Australian Educational

Researcher,22, 85 - 106.

20.Saljo, R. (1982) Learning and Understanding: A study of Differences in ConstructingMeaning from a Text, Acta Universitatis Gothoburgenesis, Gotheburg.

21.Samuelowicz, K. (1987) Learning problems of overseas students as seen by academic staff -

What can be done? Conference on Research and Development in Higher Education, Perth

HERDSA

22.Sarwar, M. (2004)Relationship of Study Attitude and Academic Performance of Students at

Secondary level in Punjab, Education, University of Arid Agriculture, Rawalpindi.

23.Tapscott, D. (1998) Growing up Digital, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

24.Watkins, D. and Akande, A. (1992) Assessing the Approaches to Learning of Nigerian

Students,Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,17, 11 - 20.

i Although the eligibility criteria require age 40 years or below, 12 respondents in the group are above 40 years.ii External students are students who enrol in a university but do not attend regular classes. They study the content

through private tuitions or by themselves and appear for examination. This facility is available only in the subjects

which do not require practical work.

HEC Occassional Report 1_ Study Approaches of Students in Pakistan

Documents

Transcript of HEC Occassional Report 1_ Study Approaches of Students in Pakistan