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
8/14/2019 HEC Occassional Report 1_ Study Approaches of Students in Pakistan
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]
8/14/2019 HEC Occassional Report 1_ Study Approaches of Students in Pakistan
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
8/14/2019 HEC Occassional Report 1_ Study Approaches of Students in Pakistan
4/13
Study Approaches of Students in Pakistan
Occasional Report 1, December 2006 2
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).
8/14/2019 HEC Occassional Report 1_ Study Approaches of Students in Pakistan
5/13
Study Approaches of Students in Pakistan
Occasional Report 1, December 2006 3
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)
8/14/2019 HEC Occassional Report 1_ Study Approaches of Students in Pakistan
6/13
Study Approaches of Students in Pakistan
Occasional Report 1, December 2006 4
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
8/14/2019 HEC Occassional Report 1_ Study Approaches of Students in Pakistan
7/13
Study Approaches of Students in Pakistan
Occasional Report 1, December 2006 5
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
8/14/2019 HEC Occassional Report 1_ Study Approaches of Students in Pakistan
8/13
Study Approaches of Students in Pakistan
Occasional Report 1, December 2006 6
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)
8/14/2019 HEC Occassional Report 1_ Study Approaches of Students in Pakistan
9/13
Study Approaches of Students in Pakistan
Occasional Report 1, December 2006 7
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
8/14/2019 HEC Occassional Report 1_ Study Approaches of Students in Pakistan
10/13
Study Approaches of Students in Pakistan
Occasional Report 1, December 2006 8
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.
8/14/2019 HEC Occassional Report 1_ Study Approaches of Students in Pakistan
11/13
Study Approaches of Students in Pakistan
Occasional Report 1, December 2006 9
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
8/14/2019 HEC Occassional Report 1_ Study Approaches of Students in Pakistan
12/13
Study Approaches of Students in Pakistan
Occasional Report 1, December 2006 10
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
8/14/2019 HEC Occassional Report 1_ Study Approaches of Students in Pakistan
13/13
Study Approaches of Students in Pakistan
Occasional Report 1, December 2006 11
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.