Study orchestration: the manifestation, interpretation and consequences of contextualised approaches to studying

This paper sets out the conceptual and empirical basis for the concept of study orchestration. The manifestation of study orchestration at a group, and at an individual level, is illustrated by means of an example that captures the range of individual differences, and of individual similarities, that typically occur. The interpretation and the categorisation of study orchestration is discussed and further illustrated by means of examples, as are the linkages between such categorisations and learning outcome. Disintegrated orchestrations, in particular, are discussed and interpreted in more detail by means of interview data. Important properties of individual study orchestration such as their stability and their contextual sensitivity are then addressed in terms of their contribution to intervention programmes for students who may be academically at risk. This paper concludes with a discussion of the concept of metaorchestration which is seen as a logical development of the concept of metalearning and which is viewed as having important consequences in terms of intervention programmes.

[1]  David Kember,et al.  INTERPRETATION OF FACTOR ANALYSES FROM THE APPROACHES TO STUDYING INVENTORY , 1989 .

[2]  T. Dunne,et al.  Individual study orchestrations and their association with learning outcome , 1990 .

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

[4]  Frank Van Overwalle,et al.  IMPROVING PERFORMANCE OF FRESHMEN THROUGH ATTRIBUTIONAL TESTIMONIES FROM FELLOW STUDENTS , 1989 .

[5]  Jan H. F. Meyer,et al.  The academically ‘at risk’ student: a pilot intervention programme and its observed effects on learning outcome , 1990 .

[6]  J. Meyer,et al.  Study approaches of nursing students: effects of an extended clinical context , 1991, Medical education.

[7]  John Biggs,et al.  INDIVIDUAL AND GROUP DIFFERENCES IN STUDY PROCESSES , 1978 .

[8]  John Biggs,et al.  Assessing student approaches to learning , 1988 .

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

[10]  Jhf Meyer,et al.  Evaluating the quality of student learning. I—An unfolding analysis of the association between perceptions of learning context and approaches to studying at an individual level , 1990 .

[11]  Jhf Meyer,et al.  Approaches to studying and course perceptions using the Lancaster inventory—A comparative study , 1989 .

[12]  Roger Säljö,et al.  Qualitative differences in learning as a function of the learner's conception of the task , 1975 .

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

[14]  B. Kozéki,et al.  RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SCHOOL MOTIVATION, APPROACHES TO STUDYING, AND ATTAINMENT, AMONG BRITISH AND HUNGARIAN ADOLESCENTS , 1985 .

[15]  J. Biggs.  THE ROLE OF METALEARNING IN STUDY PROCESSES , 1985 .

[16]  T. Dunne,et al.  Study orchestration and learning outcome: evidence of association over time among disadvantaged students , 1990 .

[17]  John T. E. Richardson,et al.  Reliability and replicability of the Approaches to Studying Questionnaire , 1990 .

[18]  Noel Entwistle,et al.  Student failure: Disintegrated patterns of study strategies and perceptions of the learning environment , 1991 .

[19]  Jhf Meyer,et al.  Evaluating the Quality of Student Learning, II--Study Orchestration and the Curriculum. , 1991 .

[20]  G. Pask.  STYLES AND STRATEGIES OF LEARNING , 1976 .

[21]  F. Marton,et al.  ON QUALITATIVE DIFFERENCES IN LEARNING: I—OUTCOME AND PROCESS* , 1976 .

[22]  Elaine Martin,et al.  SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT AND SIXTH FORM PUPILS‘ APPROACHES TO LEARNING , 1989 .

[23]  N. Entwistle,et al.  Approaches to learning, evaluations of teaching, and preferences for contrasting academic environments , 1990 .

[24]  F. Marton,et al.  ON QUALITATIVE DIFFERENCES IN LEARNING—II OUTCOME AS A FUNCTION OF THE LEARNER'S CONCEPTION OF THE TASK , 1976 .