Assessing Student Approaches to Learning: A Case of Business Students at the Faculty of Business Management, UiTM

Abstract The main aim of the study is to investigate the approaches to learning, motives and strategies of the business students at the Faculty of Business Management, UiTM. The study is also to explore the impact of age, gender, academic programmes, working experience and CGPA on the learning approaches. All these variables are selected because they bring quality of the learning outcomes on a more realistic basis. Today, there is an increasing emphasis on quality of learning in higher education. The literature identifies the approaches to learning as a significant factor affecting the quality of student learning. It is necessary to look at approaches to learning practiced by students because students might rote learn and therefore not be engaged in meaningful learning. This involves students acquiring skills and strategies, which allow them to learn effectively throughout their lives and become lifelong learners. It is important for educators to understand student learning in order to achieve the desired high quality learning outcomes. A survey is conducted in this study and the sample of this study consists of the business students (N=477) enrolled at the Faculty of Business Management, UiTM Shah Alam. Data are obtained using the Biggs’ Study Process Questionnaire (SPQ) as a diagnostic tool for measuring students’ self-reported study processes in terms of six subscales (Surface Motives and Surface Strategies, Deep Motives and Deep strategies, and Achieving Motives and Achieving Strategies), three derived Scales (Surface Approaches, Deep Approaches and Achieving Approaches) and a composite derived Scale (Deep-Achieving Approaches). The key findings provide inputs to the current scenario on the learning process specifically for the Faculty of Business Management, UiTM and will act as a basis for improvement in learning approaches of students.

[1]  Noel Entwistle,et al.  Promoting deep learning through teaching and assessment: conceptual frameworks and educational contexts. , 2000 .

[2]  A. Duff.  The role of cognitive learning styles in accounting education: developing learning competencies , 2004 .

[3]  J. Biggs.  What do inventories of students' learning processes really measure? A theoretical review and clarification. , 1993, The British journal of educational psychology.

[4]  S. Volet.  Modelling and Coaching of Relevant Metacognitive Strategies for Enhancing University Students' Learning. , 1991 .

[5]  Swee Noi Smith *,et al.  Learning approaches: examination type, discipline of study, and gender , 2005 .

[6]  K. Trigwell,et al.  Understanding Learning and Teaching: the experience in higher education , 1999 .

[7]  Ruth Garner,et al.  VERBAL-REPORT DATA ON COGNITIVE AND METACOGNITIVE STRATEGIES , 1988 .

[8]  Fermin Ma. González.  Evidence of Rote Learning of Science by Spanish University Students , 1997 .

[9]  F. Marton,et al.  Approaches to learning , 2003 .

[10]  E. V. Rossum,et al.  The Relationship between Learning Conception, Study Strategy and Learning Outcome. , 1984 .

[11]  Paul Ramsden.  Context and strategy: Situational influences on learning. , 1988 .

[12]  J. B. Beckwith.  Approaches to learning, their context and relationship to assessment performance , 1991 .

[13]  Paul Ramsden,et al.  Student Learning Research: Retrospect and Prospect , 1985 .

[14]  L. West,et al.  Cognitive Structure and Conceptual Change , 1985 .

[15]  N. Entwistle,et al.  Approaches to Learning and Levels of , 1979 .

[16]  Bisun Deo,et al.  The revised learning process questionnaire: a validation of a Western model of students' study approaches to the South Pacific context using confirmatory factor analysis. , 2007, The British journal of educational psychology.

[17]  J. Novak.  Human constructivism: A unification of psychological and epistemological phenomena in meaning making , 1993 .

[18]  N. Entwistle,et al.  Understanding Student Learning , 1983 .

[19]  J. Biggs,et al.  The revised two-factor Study Process Questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. , 2001, The British journal of educational psychology.

[20]  J. Fuente,et al.  The Revised Two-Factor Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F): Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses at item level , 2008 .

[21]  Noel Entwistle,et al.  APPROACHES TO STUDYING AND LEVELS OF PROCESSING IN UNIVERSITY STUDENTS , 1988 .

[22]  Barbara J. Flood,et al.  An Inter-Institutional Exploration of the Learning Approaches of Students Studying Accounting , 2009 .

[23]  L. Svensson,et al.  SYMPOSIUM: LEARNING PROCESSES AND STRATEGIES—III , 1977 .

[24]  N. Entwistle,et al.  Identifying distinctive approaches to studying , 1979 .

[25]  D. Watkins.  ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT AND THE CONGRUENCE OF STUDY MOTIVATION AND STRATEGY , 1982 .

[26]  F. Marton,et al.  The Experience of Learning , 1984 .

[27]  F. Marton,et al.  On qualitative differences in learning , 2013 .

[28]  John P. Keeves,et al.  Students' Learning Processes and Progress in Higher Education. , 1994 .

[29]  Michael S. Knapp,et al.  Teaching for Meaning in High-Poverty Classrooms , 1995 .

[30]  Velda McCune,et al.  Conceptions, styles, and approaches within higher education: Analytical abstractions and everyday experience. , 2001 .

[31]  J. Biggs.  Student Approaches to Learning and Studying , 1987 .

[32]  Michael Prosser,et al.  Confirmatory factor analysis of the Approaches to Teaching Inventory. , 2006, The British journal of educational psychology.

[33]  Paul Ramsden,et al.  Context and Strategy , 1988 .