Study Approaches of Life Science Students Using the Revised Two-Factor Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F)

[EN] Students' approaches to learning can vary between students of different ages, genders, years, degrees, or cultural contexts. The aim of this study was to assess the approaches to learning of different students of life science degrees. The Revised Two-Factor Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F) has been used to assess the approaches to learning of 505 students of thirteen different subjects of four different degrees at Universitat Politecnica de Valencia in order to study the factors that influence their approaches. Results show a higher deep approach of the students. Differences were observed between subjects and gender, not related to level (bachelor or master) or year. The item reliability analysis showed a high consistency for the main scales, but not for the secondary scales of the R-SPQ-2F questionnaire. High correlation between the deep and surface scales were observed. These data can provide more information to the teachers, which may help them to develop strategies focused on promoting a deeper approach to learning for the students, more adapted to their subject, level, and year.This research was partially funded by innovation educative projects (PIME/2017/A/016/A and PIME/19-20/168) by Vice-Rectorate for Studies, Quality and Accreditation of Universitat Politecnica de Valencia (UPV, Valencia, Spain).Leiva-Brondo, M.; Cebolla Cornejo, J.; Peiró Barber, RM.; Andrés-Colás, N.; Esteras Gómez, C.; Ferriol Molina, M.; Merle Farinós, HB.... (2020). Study Approaches of Life Science Students Using the Revised Two-Factor Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F). Education Sciences. 10(7):1-18. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10070173118107Sinatra, G. M., Heddy, B. C., & Lombardi, D. (2015). The Challenges of Defining and Measuring Student Engagement in Science. Educational Psychologist, 50(1), 1-13. doi:10.1080/00461520.2014.1002924Jeong, J. S., González-Gómez, D., Conde-Núñez, M. C., & Gallego-Picó, A. (2019). EXAMINATION OF STUDENTS’ ENGAGEMENT WITH R-SPQ-2F OF LEARNING APPROACH IN FLIPPED SUSTAINABLE SCIENCE COURSE. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 18(6), 880-891. doi:10.33225/jbse/19.18.880Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School Engagement: Potential of the Concept, State of the Evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109. doi:10.3102/00346543074001059Reeve, J. (2013). How students create motivationally supportive learning environments for themselves: The concept of agentic engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 579-595. doi:10.1037/a0032690Montenegro, A. (2017). Understanding the Concept of Agentic Engagement. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 19(1), 117. doi:10.14483/calj.v19n1.10472QS Enrolment Solutions https://www.internationalstudentsurvey.com/international-student-survey-2017/Biggs, J., Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. P. (2001). The revised two-factor Study Process Questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(1), 133-149. doi:10.1348/000709901158433MARTON, F., & SÄLJÖ, R. (1976). ON QUALITATIVE DIFFERENCES IN LEARNING: I-OUTCOME AND PROCESS*. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46(1), 4-11. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1976.tb02980.xMARTON, F., & SÄALJÖ, R. (1976). ON QUALITATIVE DIFFERENCES IN LEARNING-II OUTCOME AS A FUNCTION OF THE LEARNER’S CONCEPTION OF THE TASK. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46(2), 115-127. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1976.tb02304.xGrabinger, R. S., & Dunlap, J. C. (2011). Rich environments for active learning: a definition. Research in Learning Technology, 3(2). doi:10.3402/rlt.v3i2.9606Zimmerman, B. J. (1986). Becoming a self-regulated learner: Which are the key subprocesses? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11(4), 307-313. doi:10.1016/0361-476x(86)90027-5BIGGS, J. B. (1978). INDIVIDUAL AND GROUP DIFFERENCES IN STUDY PROCESSES. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 48(3), 266-279. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1978.tb03013.xSchmeck, R. R., Ribich, F., & Ramanaiah, N. (1977). Development of a Self-Report Inventory for Assessing Individual Differences in Learning Processes. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1(3), 413-431. doi:10.1177/014662167700100310Booth, P., Luckett, P., & Mladenovic, R. (1999). The quality of learning in accounting education: the impact of approaches to learning on academic performance. Accounting Education, 8(4), 277-300. doi:10.1080/096392899330801Eley, M. G. (1992). Differential adoption of study approaches within individual students. Higher Education, 23(3), 231-254. doi:10.1007/bf00145015Abhayawansa, S., & Fonseca, L. (2010). Conceptions of Learning and Approaches to Learning—A Phenomenographic Study of a Group of Overseas Accounting Students from Sri Lanka. Accounting Education, 19(5), 527-550. doi:10.1080/09639284.2010.502651Zhang, L.-F. (2000). University Students’ Learning Approaches in Three Cultures: An Investigation of Biggs’s 3P Model. The Journal of Psychology, 134(1), 37-55. doi:10.1080/00223980009600847Richardson, J. T. E. (1994). Cultural specificity of approaches to studying in higher education: A literature survey. Higher Education, 27(4), 449-468. doi:10.1007/bf01384904Hall *, M., Ramsay, A., & Raven, J. (2004). Changing the learning environment to promote deep learning approaches in first-year accounting students. Accounting Education, 13(4), 489-505. doi:10.1080/0963928042000306837Duff *, A. (2004). Understanding academic performance and progression of first-year accounting and business economics undergraduates: the role of approaches to learning and prior academic achievement. Accounting Education, 13(4), 409-430. doi:10.1080/0963928042000306800Davidson, R. A. (2002). Relationship of study approach and exam performance. Journal of Accounting Education, 20(1), 29-44. doi:10.1016/s0748-5751(01)00025-2Salamonson, Y., Weaver, R., Chang, S., Koch, J., Bhathal, R., Khoo, C., & Wilson, I. (2013). Learning approaches as predictors of academic performance in first year health and science students. Nurse Education Today, 33(7), 729-733. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2013.01.013Entwistle, N., & Entwistle, D. (2003). Preparing for Examinations: The interplay of memorising and understanding, and the development of knowledge objects. Higher Education Research & Development, 22(1), 19-41. doi:10.1080/0729436032000056562Frăsineanu, E. S. (2013). Approach to Learning Process: Superficial Learning and Deep Learning at Students. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 76, 346-350. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.04.125Justicia, F., Pichardo, M. C., Cano, F., Berbén, A. B. G., & De la Fuente, J. (2008). The Revised Two-Factor Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F): Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses at item level. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 23(3), 355-372. doi:10.1007/bf03173004Fryer, L. K., Ginns, P., Walker, R. A., & Nakao, K. (2011). The adaptation and validation of the CEQ and the R-SPQ-2F to the Japanese tertiary environment. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 549-563. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02045.xGurpinar, E., Kulac, E., Tetik, C., Akdogan, I., & Mamakli, S. (2013). Do learning approaches of medical students affect their satisfaction with problem-based learning? Advances in Physiology Education, 37(1), 85-88. doi:10.1152/advan.00119.2012Parpala, A., Lindblom-Ylänne, S., Komulainen, E., Litmanen, T., & Hirsto, L. (2010). Students’ approaches to learning and their experiences of the teaching-learning environment in different disciplines. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(2), 269-282. doi:10.1348/000709909x476946Gijbels, D., Van de Watering, G., Dochy, F., & Van den Bossche, P. (2005). The relationship between students’ approaches to learning and the assessment of learning outcomes. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 20(4), 327-341. doi:10.1007/bf03173560Mogre, V., & Amalba, A. (2014). Assessing the reliability and validity of the Revised Two Factor Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ2F) in Ghanaian medical students. Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions, 11, 19. doi:10.3352/jeehp.2014.11.19Mok, C. K. F., Dodd, B., & Whitehill, T. L. (2009). Speech-language pathology students’ approaches to learning in a problem-based learning curriculum. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 11(6), 472-481. doi:10.3109/17549500903003052May, W., Chung, E.-K., Elliott, D., & Fisher, D. (2012). The relationship between medical students’ learning approaches and performance on a summative high-stakes clinical performance examination. Medical Teacher, 34(4), e236-e241. doi:10.3109/0142159x.2012.652995Marton, F. (1981). Phenomenography ? Describing conceptions of the world around us. Instructional Science, 10(2), 177-200. doi:10.1007/bf00132516Graham, N. C., Entwistle, N., & Ramsden, P. (1984). Understanding Student Learning. British Journal of Educational Studies, 32(3), 284. doi:10.2307/3121589Wilson, K. L., Smart, R. M., & Watson, R. J. (1996). Gender differences in approaches to learning in first year psychology students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 66(1), 59-71. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1996.tb01176.xBoyle, E. A., Duffy, T., & Dunleavy, K. (2003). Learning styles and academic outcome: The validity and utility of Vermunt’s Inventory of Learning Styles in a British higher education setting. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(2), 267-290. doi:10.1348/00070990360626976Fox, R. A., McManus, I. C., & Winder, B. C. (2001). The shortened Study Process Questionnaire: An investigation of its structure and longitudinal stability using confirmatory factor analysis. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(4), 511-530. doi:10.1348/000709901158659Zeegers, P. (2001). Approaches to learning in science: A longitudinal study. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(1), 115-132. doi:10.1348/000709901158424Snelgrove, S., & Slater, J. (2003). Approaches to learning: psychometric testing of a study process questionnaire. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 43(5), 496-505. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02747.xROSSUM, E. J., & SCHENK, S. M. (1984). THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEARNING CONCEPTION, STUDY STRATEGY AND LEARNING OUTCOME. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 54(1), 73-83. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1984.tb00846.xTrigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Waterhouse, F. (1999). Higher Education, 37(1), 57-70. doi:10.1023/a:1003548313194Crawford, K., Gordon, S., Nicholas, J., & Prosser, M. (1998). Qualitatively different experiences of learning mathematics at university. Learning and Instruction, 8(5), 455-468. doi:10.1016/s0959-4752(98)00005-xApproaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students (ASSIST) (Incorporating the Revised Approaches to Studying Inventory—RASI) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260291730_Approaches_and_Study_Skills_Inventory_for_Students_ASSIST_incorporating_the_Revised_Approaches_to_Studying_Inventory_-_RASIImmekus, J. C., & Imbrie, P. K. (2009). A Test and Cross-Validation of the Revised Two-Factor Study Process Questionnaire Factor Structure Among Western University Students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70(3), 495-510. doi:10.1177/0013164409355685Socha, A., & Sigler, E. A. (2014). Exploring and «reconciling» the factor structure for the Revised Two-factor Study Process Questionnaire. Learning and Individual Differences, 31, 43-50. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2013.12.010Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Furnham, A., & Lewis, M. (2007). Personality and approaches to learning predict preference for different teaching methods. Learning and Individual Differences, 17(3), 241-250. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2006.12.001Furnham, A., Monsen, J., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2009). Typical intellectual engagement, Big Five personality traits, approaches to learning and cognitive ability predictors of academic performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(4), 769-782. doi:10.1348/978185409x412147Phan, H. P. (2017). Multiple regression analysis of epistemological beliefs, learning approaches, and self-regulated learning. Electronic Journal of Research in Education Psychology, 6(14). doi:10.25115/ejrep.v6i14.1262Stes, A., De Maeyer, S., & Van Petegem, P. (2013). Examining the Cross-Cultural Sensitivity of the Revised Two-Factor Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F) and Validation of a Dutch Version. PLoS ONE, 8(1), e54099. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0054099Baeten, M., Kyndt, E., Struyven, K., & Dochy, F. (2010). Using student-centred learning environments to stimulate deep approaches to learning: Factors encouraging or discouraging their effectiveness. Educational Research Review, 5(3), 243-260. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2010.06.001Xie, Q., & Zhang, L. (2014). Demographic Factors, Personality, and Ability as Predictors of Learning Approaches. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 24(4), 569-577. doi:10.1007/s40299-014-0202-5Severiens, S., & Dam, G. (1998). A multilevel meta-analysis of gender differences in learning orientations. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68(4), 595-608. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1998.tb01315.xRubin, M., Scevak, J., Southgate, E., Macqueen, S., Williams, P., & Douglas, H. (2018). Older women, deeper learning, and greater satisfaction at university: Age and gender predict university students’ learning approach and degree satisfaction. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 11(1), 82-96. doi:10.1037/dhe0000042Gow, L., & Kember, D. (1990). Does higher education promote independent learning? Higher Education, 19(3), 307-322. doi:10.1007/bf00133895Richardson, J. T. E., & King, E. (1998). Adult Students in Higher Education. The Journal of Higher Education, 69(1), 65-88. doi:10.1080/00221546.1998.11775125Richardson, J. T. E. (2013). Approaches to studying across the adult life span: Evidence from distance education. Learning and Individual Differences, 26, 74-80. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2013.04.012Harper, G., & Kember, D. (1986). Approaches to Study of Distance Education Students. British Journal of Educational Technology, 17(3), 212-222. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.1986.tb00510.xLeung, D. Y. P., Ginns, P., & Kember, D. (2008). Examining the Cultural Specificity of Approaches To Learning in Universities in Hong Kong and Sydney. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39(3), 251-266. doi:10.1177/0022022107313905Entwistle, N., & Tait, H. (1990). Approaches to learning, evaluations of teaching, and preferences for contrasting academic environments. Higher Education, 19(2), 169-194. doi:10.1007/bf00137106Leung, S. F., Mok, E., & Wong, D. (2008). The impact of assessment methods on the learning of nursing students. Nurse Education Today, 28(6), 711-719. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2007.11.004Shuell, T. J. (1986). Cognitive Conceptions of Learning. Review of Educational Research, 56(4), 411-436. doi:10.3102/00346543056004411Biggs, J. (1999). What the Student Does: teaching for enhanced learning. Higher Education Research & Development, 18(1), 57-75. doi:10.1080/0729436990180105Berger, J.-L., & Karabenick, S. A. (2011). Motivation and students’ use of learning strategies: Evidence of unidirectional effects in mathematics classrooms. Learning and Instruction, 21(3), 416-428. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.06.002Zakariya. (2019). Study Approaches in Higher Education Mathematics: Investigating the Statistical Behaviour of an Instrument Translated into Norwegian. Education Sciences, 9(3), 191. doi:10.3390/educsci9030191Munshi, F., Al-Rukban, M., & Al-Hoqail, I. (2012). Reliability and validity of an Arabic version of the revised two-factor study process questionnaire R-SPQ-2F. Journal of Family and Community Medicine, 19(1), 33. doi:10.4103/2230-8229.94010Shaik, S. A., Almarzuqi, A., Almogheer, R., Alharbi, O., Jalal, A., & Alorainy, M. (2017). Assessing Saudi medical students learning approach using the revised two-factor study process questionnaire. International Journal of Medical Education, 8, 292-296. doi:10.5116/ijme.5974.7a06Watkins, D. (1986). The Approaches to Learning of Australian Tertiary Students: A Replication. Higher Education Research & Development, 5(2), 185-190. doi:10.1080/0729436860050207Jeong, J. S., González-Gómez, D., & Cañada-Cañada, F. (2019). How does a flipped classroom course affect the affective domain toward science course? Interactive Learning Environments, 29(5), 707-719. doi:10.1080/10494820.2019.1636079Wolf, E. J., Harrington, K. M., Clark, S. L., & Miller, M. W. (2013). Sample Size Requirements for Structural Equation Models. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73(6), 913-934. doi:10.1177/0013164413495237Moulaye M’Hamed Taher, A., Chen, J., & Yao, W. (2011). Key predictors of creative MBA students’ performance. Journal of Technology Management in China, 6(1), 43-68. doi:10.1108/17468771111105659Dong, N., Bai, M., Zhang, H., & Zhang, J. (2019). Approaches to learning IFRS by Chinese accounting students. Journal of Accounting Education, 48, 1-11. doi:10.1016/j.jaccedu.2019.04.002Selectividad 2018: Estas Son las Carreras Con las Notas de Corte Más Altas https://www.abc.es/sociedad/abci-selectividad-2018-estas-diez-carreras-notas-corte-mas-altas-201806041503_noticia.htmlUniversitat Politècnica de València. Notas de Corte Curso 2018-19 http://www.upv.es/pls/oalu/sic_futuroalumno.notascorte?p_idioma=cNotas de Corte 2018 https://elpais.com/especiales/universidades/titulacion/notas/biotecnologia/36Fryer, L. K., & Vermunt, J. D. (2017). Regulating approaches to learning: Testing learning strategy convergences across a year at university. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 21-41. doi:10.1111/bjep.12169Mujeres Matriculadas y Egresadas en Enseñanza de Grado y de Primer y segundo Ciclo por Rama de Enseñanza https://www.ine.es/jaxiT3/Datos.htm?t=12722Vermunt, J. D. (2005). Relations between student learning patterns and personal and contextual factors and academic performance. Higher Education, 49(3), 205-234. doi:10.1007/s10734-004-6664-2Chan, Y.-K., & Kan, A. C. N. (2017). The Interplay between Gender, Learning Approaches and Academic Performance in Chinese Sub-Degree and Degree Students. Global Journal of Educational Studies, 3(1), 10. doi:10.5296/gjes.v3i1.10781Scouller, K. (1998). Higher Education, 35(4), 453-472. doi:10.1023/a:1003196224280Bobe, B. J., & Cooper, B. J. (2017). The effect of language proficiency on approaches to learning and satisfaction of undergraduate accounting students. Accounting Education, 28(2), 149-171. doi:10.1080/09639284.2017.1396481Hundleby, J. D., & Nunnally, J. (1968). Psychometric Theory. American Educational Research Journal, 5(3), 431. doi:10.2307/1161962Vergara-Hernández, C., Simancas-Pallares, M., & Carbonell-Muñoz, Z. (2019). Psychometric properties of the revised two-factor study process questionnaire r-spq-2f - spanish version. Duazary, 16(2), 205-218. doi:10.21676/2389783x.2744Vaughan, B. (2018). A Rasch analysis of the Revised Study Process Questionnaire in an Australian osteopathy student cohort. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 56, 144-153. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2017.12.003Martyn, J., Terwijn, R., Kek, M. Y. C. A., & Huijser, H. (2014). Exploring the relationships between teaching, approaches to learning and critical thinking in a problem-based learning foundation nursing course. Nurse Education Today, 34(5), 829-835. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2013.04.023López-Aguado, M., & Gutiérrez-Provecho, L. (2018). Checking the underlying structure of R-SPQ-2F using covariance structure analysis / Comprobación de la estructura subyacente del R-SPQ-2F mediante análisis de estructura de covarianza. Cultura y Educación, 30(1), 105-141. doi:10.1080/11356405.2017.1416787Merino Soto, C., & Kumar Pradhan, R. (2013). VALIDACIÓN ESTRUCTURAL DEL R-SPQ-2F: UN ANÁLISIS FACTORIAL CONFIRMATORIO. Revista Digital de Investigación en Docencia Universitaria, (1), 111. doi:10.19083/ridu.7.19