1 Modification of conceptions of and approaches to

1 Duarte, A. M. (2012). Modification of conceptions of and approaches to learning by metacognition and changes in the learning context. In T. Patellis (Ed.). Research Studies, Literature Reviews and Perspectives in Psychological Science (pp. 133-143). Athens: Atiner – Athens Institute for Education and Research.

Modification of conceptions of and approaches to learning by metacognition and changes in the learning context António Duarte Assistant Professor Faculty of Psychology – University of Lisbon

Abstract: This paper describes an intervention that involved promotion of metacognitive reflection on personal learning experience, along with learning context modifications. This intervention was applied to a group of university students and its testing was conducted according to a design inspired in a repeated measures experimental plan, assessing its impact on participants’ conceptions of and approaches to learning. Students’ perception of the intervention was also assessed. Results suggest some associated changes in direction of a qualitative conception of learning and an increase of a deep and achieving approach to learning. 1. Introduction Conceptions of learning have been studied by Phenomenography and refer to students’ natural understanding, or interpretation of the learning phenomena (Marton 1981). Research identified two opposing conceptions of learning: reproductive, or quantitative, and comprehensive or qualitative (Marton & Säljö, 1976). A quantitative conception of learning represents learning as a process of accumulating information in order to reproduce, or apply it. In contrast, a qualitative conception of learning implies that learning refers to comprehension and meaning interpretation. Marton et al. (1993) identified specific variants of each of the main conceptions of learning. They proposed a system of six conceptions that define learning as: 1) increasing knowledge, 2) memorising and reproducing, 3) applying, 4) understanding, 5) seeing things in a different way and 6) changing as a person. The construct of approaches to learning also derived from phenomenographic research and conceptualises students’ learning process in terms of a conjugation between motivational orientation and type of learning strategy (Biggs, 1987; Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983). The main distinction is between surface, deep and achieving approaches to learning. The surface approach to learning involves fear of failure and dealing with learning situations with minimum effort, responding only to compulsory demands in terms of rote memorisation of details (Biggs et al. 2001). In contrast, the deep approach to learning implies dealing extensively with academic tasks because of the intrinsic enjoyment of learning and through an investment in comprehension (Kember et al., 2004). Finally, the achieving approach to learning refers to the search for excellent grades through work organisation (Biggs et al. 2001). The relation between approaches to learning and academic results has been widely studied, with the evidence that the deep approach to learning are normally related with higher success and quality of leaning. A recent study with high education students Cano (2007), for example, confirmed that, along with intelligence, the deep approach to

2 learning is a good predictor of academic achievement since it correlates with higher grades. Some studies have also gathered evidence of an association between approaches to learning and conceptions of learning: the surface approach tends to correlate with the quantitative conception and the deep approach with the qualitative conception (Edmunds and Richardson, 2009; Entwistle and Peterson, 2004) Conceptions of and approaches to learning have been widely studied in a fundamental descriptive perspective. Besides, we witness the development of applied research interested in testing the possibility of intervening on those variables, trying thus to develop procedures that can improve the quality of learning. This research has been producing mixed results. In a literature review Richardson (2004) emphasizes the role of students’ perceptions of those changes in mediating actual changes. Nevertheless a number of interventions into the learning context or into students’ metacognitive awareness and self-regulation of learning suggest the possibility of bringing desirable changes in approaches to learning. What are the goals of interventions on conceptions of learning and approaches to learning? A first perspective states that intervention should encourage deep and achieving approaches to learning and should dissuade the surface approach. The rationale for this is that deep and achieving approaches tend to lead to a better learning product (e.g. Trigwell & Prosser, 1991) and that education, especially at secondary and tertiary level, should mostly aim at students’ comprehension of subjects - and demonstration of this comprehension through evaluation. Besides, considering that conceptions of learning are organised in a hierarchical way (Marton et al., 1993), it can be argued that it is preferable a qualitative conception (i.e. learning as comprehension and personal change) to a quantitative conception (learning as information acquisition). Thus, since the quantitative conception of learning is included in the qualitative (which is also related to the use of a deep approach to learning) the later would be considered as the goal of an intervention aimed at changing students’ beliefs about learning. A second perspective considers that, as sometimes a surface approach can also be an efficient way of learning, intervention shouldn’t be directed to encouragement or dissuasion of any approach to learning, but toward promotion of its self-regulation (e.g. Blundell, 1995). This self-regulation means taking into account situations’ demands, resulting in the development of a reflective approach, adapted to the learning tasks. Finally, in a third perspective (“global”) it is possible to simultaneously aim at the two previously stated intervention goals. It is legitimate to encourage a deep and achieving approach to learning, especially through changes in the learning environment. Besides, there is the need to prepare students to regulate their approach to learning, preparing them to be able to adapt to different learning situations. Therefore, the learning context can be structured in order to improve the quality of learning, but students can decide on the use of their approaches to learning (based on knowledge of different approaches and their consequences in different situations). Intervention on approaches to learning can be centred on the students, on the learning context or on both, according to the variables under manipulation: personal, contextual and both personal and contextual. An intervention centred on students invests in the modification of approaches to learning through manipulation of personal variables. A “directive” form of this kind of intervention (similar to the “study-skills movement”) involves encouraging students’

3 adoption of the deep approach to learning, for example through its exposition or through the improvement of other learning skills. For example, English et al. (2004) tested an intervention aimed to improve students' written communication skills that proved to encourage a deep approach to learning. In alternative, an “open” form of students centred intervention (similar to the “learning-to-learn” perspective) avoids prescribing or inducing particular forms of learning, aiming at the development of students’ awareness of their learning and self-regulation of alternative approaches. This involves metacognitive awareness of one’s own learning and socio-cognitive awareness of other people’s learning. Intervention on conceptions of learning has been also conducted in such a way, assuming that a simple prescription of “desirable” representations does not seem to suffice for changing already rooted conceptions (e.g. Boulton-Lewis et al., 1994). Within the framework of SAL theory (Students’ Approaches to Learning) it is normally assumed that reflection on approaches to learning promotes a deep approach, which is viewed as the “natural” form of learning since it involves the seeking of meaning (e.g. Biggs, 1987). Besides, the advantage of reflection can lead to self-regulation, which would allow the strategic use of any approach to learning. We propose to organize the several ways of promoting students’ reflection on approaches in three types: “theory-based reflection”; “self/socio-reflection” and “inventory-based reflection”. “Theory-based reflection” on approaches to learning involves students’ awareness of this concept, according to the theoretical knowledge it exists of it. We should stress the advantages of students’ knowledge about characteristics of different approaches to learning and about consequences of adopting each one (Entwistle & Wilson, 1977; Entwistle, 1979, cit. Hounsell, 1979; Entwistle et al., 1987). “Self/socio-reflection” on approaches to learning implies students’ awareness on their own approaches and confrontation with other students’ approaches. Therefore, by adding to that clarification on one’s own learning process there is the discovery of alternative processes. This discovery can promote changes by de-centring students from their approaches to learning, by helping them to see the consequences of this particular approaches and by showing them alternative approaches which they can adopt (Gibbs, 1992). Furthermore, this reflection on one’s and others’ approaches to learning can be supported by concepts and models used by the previously mentioned as “theory-based reflection”. “Inventory-based reflection” on approaches to learning is a specific form of promoting self/socio-reflection, which involves the use of approaches to learning questionnaires to help students to be aware of their approaches and of alternative ones. The goal is also to stimulate students’ evaluation of a possible change on personal approaches to learning (Beckwith, 1991). Parallel to a student’s centred intervention it is possible to promote changes on approaches to learning by intervening on the context where learning takes place. Despite approaches demonstrate tendency for consistency they aren’t immune to environmental influences. Therefore, it is possible to affect them through specific changes in the learning context, which basically involve identifying and removing factors of a surface approach and promoting those that encourage a deep and achieving approach. These changes can be implemented in different dimensions of the learning context. Here we stress dimensions involved in the present study: planning of educational objectives, management of relational climate and configuration of

4 evaluation of learning. Concerning educational objectives, it is suggested to avoid presenting them to students in terms of the curricular contents (Ramsden, 1992). In alternative, it is recommended the encouragement of the use of a deep approach to learning, stressing the need to construct meaning out of the information already given (Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983). Instead of stating general aims, it is recommended that students can be specifically oriented to the production of knowledge at high levels of structural complexity (Biggs, 1996). Moreover, it is suggested that, parallel to presenting students with the expected learning process (e.g. “critical reading”), they should be alerted to the learning approach on what to avoid (e.g. “memorisation of large quantities of factual information”) (Ramsden, 1992). Teacher-student relationship is another area of intervention on the learning context. Above all, it seems that teaching should involve a genuine regard on each student as a unique human being, which demands an empathic respect for his or her individuality. Specifically, it is recommended that teacher-student relationship can be structured in order to avoid a “cold social climate” (i.e. threatening, anxious and cynical), since this tends to lead to a surface approach to learning (Biggs & Moore, 1993). In alternative, a friendly (but organised and controlled) “atmosphere” is suggested, in order to encourage a deep and achieving approach to learning (e.g. Entwistle et al., 1989). Such a “warm social climate” can be, for example, established in the context of scaffolding (Biggs & Moore, 1993). The third level of intervention we consider the evaluation of learning. First of all, it is suggested that teaching should not focus too much on evaluation. This means structuring situations wherein students can strive to reach comprehension, without being very concerned about testifying their learning (Schmeck, 1988). Besides this, evaluation should parallelize the learning process, in order that this can be totally evaluated and corrected by feedback (Gibbs, 1992). Evaluation can thus be centred not just on the learning product, but also on the learning process, with emphasis on the degree of use of the deep approach (Cowley, 1989, cit. Ramsden, 1992). Furthermore, evaluation should avoid encouragement and rewarding of memorised answers, and orient the students to answers that demonstrate comprehension (e.g. Sparkes, 1991). Considering the needs to simultaneous intervene on the learning context and on students themselves a form of intervention has been proposed that we should designate as “global”. Effectively, it can paradoxically happen that a learning context penalises the same deep approach to learning (e.g. in evaluation) that an occurring intervention stimulates. Therefore, it is important to accompany such interventions with convergent changes in the learning context, in order that students perceive the advantages in eventually changing their approaches to learning (Entwistle et al., 1998). Besides, context interventions, which aim at changing approaches to learning, can benefit by parallel students’ centred interventions, which directly promote these changes. Gordon and Debus (2002) conducted a series of interventions that involved a modification of learning context and of students’ awareness of learning. Interventions involved the use of: cooperative group problem-based learning methods (often in case study format); personalised teaching content and method; assessment techniques focused on student exposition (e.g. essays and written reports); reflective learning journals and exposition of personal theories of learning; summarisations of the contextual modifications that had been made, adjacently to an emphasis that the students’ active engagement was needed to add to these modifications for the aiming of developing deeper learning; and feedback to the students about their cohort’s relative

5 scores on a questionnaire that measures approaches to learning (i.e. the SPQ). The authors gathered evidence of shifts to a deep approach to learning due to the interventions. Papinczak et al. (2008) tested a metacognitive intervention that allowed first-year medical students a reflection on the learning in a PBL tutorial environment, coupled with peer- and self-assessment. The intervention failed to reverse the known trend for these students, to reduce the adoption of a deep learning approach and to increase the use of surface learning. The authors discussed the limitations of PBL to promote deep approaches to learning in dense curricula, and stressed the significance of personal and contextual factors (e.g. study habits, workload and assessment) in influencing individual approaches to learning situations. Balasooriya et al. (2009) reported an intervention study on the impact of an innovative medical educational design about students’ approaches to learning. The new program included a greater focus on critical evaluation, reflection, communication and teamwork along with the specific contents of the course. Novelties included early clinical experience and small group teaching built around daily situations that graduates can expect to meet in practice. Although a proportion of students changed as expected to deeper approaches, a significant subgroup moved in the direction of adopting more surface approaches. The authors of this study interpreted this result on the basis that the changes on the learning context likely polarised students, alerting that individual characteristics (e.g. learning experiences, learning preferences, level of cognitive development) might influence in the same degree or more students’ learning as curriculum design. Analysis of conceptions of learning and approaches to learning intervention results reveals that their efficiency is neither linear nor consistent. Although it is relatively simple to induce a surface approach, it is not easy to encourage a deep approach. Furthermore, some of these interventions seemed to be successful only in more mature students (Biggs & Rihn, 1984). Nevertheless, some interventions were able to produce positive results, in increasing the deep approach to learning (Gibbs, 1992). This article describes the testing of a “global” type intervention procedure (simultaneous centred on the students and on the context), directed to change conceptions of learning and approaches to learning.

2. Method 2.1 Participants The intervention was implemented on a group of Geography University students, at their 4th year of studies and who were having a course on Educational Psychology. This course belonged to their initial training as future Geography teachers. Sample contained 24 participants. 58,3% were females and 41,7% were males. Participants’ age varied between 21 and 42 years, with a mean of 28,5. 2.2 Intervention Plan and Assessment The intervention plan was inspired by a repeated measures experimental plan. Participants were assessed concerning two dependent variables –conceptions of learning

6 and approaches to learning- at three phases, along an academic year. Intervention procedure was implemented between second and third assessment moment. Conception of learning was assessed by content analysis of written answers to a question on the personal meaning of learning. The analysis was made according to a previously developed category system, derived from an analysis of answers to the same question, given by the population from where the sample has been extracted (Duarte, 2007). The system considers three dimensions of the conception of learning: referential (what is learning); procedural (how do we learn); contextual (where does learning occur). At the referential dimension (i.e. what is learning) two conceptions have been differentiated: 1) a “quantitative” conception, which states learning as knowledge accumulation (i.e. absent or vague definitions of learning or learning as information acquisition, memorisation or application); 2) a “qualitative” conception, which defines learning as a comprehensive process (i.e. learning as comprehension, as comprehension and application, as interpretative comprehension – which involves changes in existing notions or awareness of different perspectives- and learning as personal change). At the procedural dimension (how do we learn) also two conceptions have been differentiated: 1) a “quantitative” conception, which states that we learn by stocking information (i.e. absent or vague definitions of the learning process or learning by stocking or applying stocked information); 2) a “qualitative” conception, which sustains that we learn by transforming knowledge (i.e. critically analysing, relating, being aware and developing perspectives; learning to learn, modifying and being modified by information, and self-motivating). At the contextual dimension (where does learning occur) also two conceptions have been differentiated: 1) a “restrict” conception (i.e. absent or vague definitions of the learning context or this as the school); 2) an “ample” conception, which sustains that learning occurs along all kinds of environments1. Content analysis was carried out by two independent judges, using a “thematic” criterion for unit segmentation (Flores, 1994). This means that any answer segment which refers to any of the considered dimensions of conception of learning (i.e. referential, procedural or contextual), was considered as a unit to categorise, by correspondence with a category of the analysis system. Percentage of agreement between judges was 81,9% to referential dimension, 86,5% to procedural dimension and 95,2% to contextual dimension. Disagreement resolution was made by discussion, which led to a consensual categorisation. According to the phenomenographical notion of a hierarchy of conceptions of learning, answers with more than one conception were categorised as higher conception (i.e. respectively qualitative and ample conceptions). Approaches to learning were assessed by a previously developed questionnaire (i.e. IPA-u), which was administered to the population from which the sample was extracted, and which was subject to psychometric and factorial analysis (Duarte, 2007). This questionnaire measures surface, deep and achieving approach to learning. The surface approach conjugates here an instrumental motivation (i.e. learning because of extrinsic pressures and/or for professional reasons) with a surface strategy (i.e. minimal effort, 1

Choice to include absent or vague definitions on “quantitative” and “restrict” conceptions was made according to the phenomenographic perspective. Effectively, “quantitative” conception is characterised either by difficulties in articulating the answer (Säljö, 1979) or by a less organised representation (in terms of the answer structural complexity) (Boulton-Lewis et al, 1994). Considering conceptions of learning hierarchy and development we then assume that non-articulated answers are the “embryo” of “quantitative” or “restrict” conceptions of learning.

7 with exclusive focus on what is demanded). The deep approach integrates here intrinsic motivation (i.e. positive emotional experiences related to learning) with deep strategy (i.e. relating information and/or critical thinking). The achieving approach combines, in this case, achieving motivation (i.e. struggling for success – in terms of high academic grades and/or excellence upon peers- and/or concerns with evaluation) with achieving strategy (i.e. organisation of personal time). During the first session baseline assessment of conceptions and approaches to learning was carried out. Two months later, a second evaluation occurred, after a set of lessons on psychology of adolescence and on teacher communication strategies. These lessons combined lecturing with group-work (i.e. analysis of adolescents’ testimonies and roleplay of strategies). Educational evaluation of this learning was carried by an essaywriting task. Intervention procedure was implemented after a two-week break, in nine sessions, along three months, and followed by a final assessment of conceptions and approaches to learning. Between the second and the third assessment questionnaire items were mixed, to reduce the “carry-over” effect (Hambleton et al., 1998). Results of conceptions of learning were subjected to an analysis of frequency and percentage (of each conception) for each assessment moment along with a testing of differences. This was carried out through a Wilcoxon test, comparing results (in each dimension of conception of learning) between the first two assessment moments and between each of these and the third moment (i.e. 1st-2nd, 2nd-3rd and 1st-3rd). Results of the approaches to learning questionnaire were also subjected to multivariate variance analysis (three related means). A repeated-measures MANOVA was carried, where the assessment moment functioned as intra-subjects factor (three levels). In each case, multivariate and univariate tests were carried out, and the “mean univariated test was” was calculated2. Following the third assessment, participants’ perception and experience of the intervention was evaluated through semi-structured interviews. This included questioning on perception of intervention-provoked changes and positive and negative aspects of the intervention. Interview data was subjected to an inductive content analysis, carried on by the author. In order to estimate validity, 10% of the answers were analysed by another judge, previously introduced to the detected categories. Agreement between judges was 60%. 2.3. Intervention procedure As referred, intervention was both directed to the participants and to the learning context. At participants’ level, the intervention consisted on promoting metacognitive and cognitive reflection on their own learning processes and on alternative processes. This involved two combined procedures: 1) sessions for self and hetero-analysis; 2) a case study. All participants for the only group involved received both implemented procedures to promote metacognitive and cognitive reflection. Sessions for self and hetero-analysis were an opportunity for: a) reflecting (by writing answers to questions on one’s own learning factors, conception, motivation, strategies and products); b) self-analysing (by content analysis of those answers, based on ”averaged F test” (p.B-161, Norusis, 1988)

2

8 category systems derived from theory); c) comparing, in small groups, personal factors of learning, representations about learning, academic motivations, learning strategies and learning products. Sessions also involved exercises of categorisation of other students’ answers, introduction of examples of surface and deep learning strategies, and occasional presentation of testimonies on the intervention agent’s learning experience. Between sessions, exercises for inferring illustrative answers of each category of analysis were conducted. The groups displayed results of their analysis in matrixes, complemented by narrative descriptions (“holistic analysis”). Specifically, the standard procedure for self and hetero-analysis involved nine tasks for each learning process. First, participants answered a set of open questions on the learning process. Second, a grid for categorising the answers was introduced (see Appendix for both questions and self-analysis categories); Third, participants applied the grid to other students’ illustrative answer excerpts; Fourth, participants applied the grid to their own answers; Fifth, participants displayed results in matrixes. Sixth, participants joined in dyads to exchange and validate analysis results. Seventh, dyads joined in working groups to compare results. Eighth, working groups joined to present and discuss results. Ninth, between sessions participants inferred illustrative answers for each category of analysis. The groups also carried out a case study, on other university students. These case studies were focused on students’ learning experiences and involved a comparison of these experiences (analysed with some procedures used for self and hetero-analysis) with participants’ analysed experiences (except learning factors variable). Each small group thus had the opportunity to interview, question and analyse the answers of another student regarding his own learning process and product, and to compare them with their own answers. Case studies involved a sequence of six stages: 1) introduction of case study methodology to participants; 2) case selection; 3) data gathering; 4) data analysis; 5) data interpretation (i.e. theoretical integration of results and hypothetical explanations); 6) concluding (i.e. assessing data quality and validity); 7) self-evaluating the working process. Each group was supervised, within and out of the sessions, and the group members wrote a report with collected data, analysis, interpretation (i.e. theoretical integration of results and hypothetical explanations), and a self-evaluation on their working process.The intervention also implied the manipulation of the learning context, by introduced changes in the course where it took place. Changes involved presentation of educational objectives, evaluation method, and professor-student relation. Objectives were explicitly presented to students as increasing motivation, self-regulation and learning efficiency. The evaluation turned to be not just “product-oriented” (qualitative evaluation of group reports) but also continuous and “process-corrective” (supervision of exercises and case-studies). Supervision was also an opportunity to change professorstudent relationship, through the use of some phenomenological communication strategies (i.e. self-disclosure, encouragement, questioning, specification and exemplification, solicitation, paraphrasing, resuming, emphatic answering and clarifying).

3. Results In the first and second assessment moments (pre-intervention) the majority of cases presents a quantitative conception of learning, both for the referential and the procedural

9 dimension. After intervention (third assessment) this situation inverts, and the majority of cases reveal a qualitative conception of learning. Graph 1 shows this evolution regarding referential dimension, which is similar to the evolution of procedural dimension. Graph 1 Nevertheless, regarding the contextual dimension, the number of cases with a restrict conception of learning is the majority in all assessment moments. Table 1 shows the relative percentage of each possible relation between assessment moments, as well as results of the used statistical test (Wilcoxon). Results show that there are no significant differences in participants’ conceptions of learning (all dimensions) between the first and the second assessment (pre-intervention). In most cases, conceptions are the same in both of these assessments. Regarding the procedural and the contextual dimensions (i.e. how do we learn; where learning occurs) differences are also not significant between each of these assessments and the third (postintervention). But regarding the referential dimension (i.e. what is learning) the increase in conception of learning (toward a qualitative one) is significant, in direction of the last assessment. Table 1 Approaches to learning progression can be analysed in Graph 2 and in Table 2 (together with MANOVA with repeated measures results)3. Graph 2 Table 2 Concerning the surface approach to learning, a decrease after the intervention can be observed. Nevertheless, this approach suffers a reduction since the first assessment moment. Statistical tests show that, concerning surface approach, differences are not statistically significant. Regarding the deep approach, this reduces between the 1st and the 2nd assessment, increasing after intervention. Statistical tests reveal a statistically significant difference between the 1st and the 2nd assessments (jointed) and the 3rd (F (1, 23) = 44,09, p = 0,00). Finally, concerning the achieving approach, there is also a small increase after the intervention. This inverts the reduction tendency of this approach observed between the 1st and the 2nd assessment, although not sufficient for a return to the initial condition. Statistical tests show a statistically significant difference between 1st and 2nd assessment together and the 3rd (F (1, 23) = 64,75 , p = 0,00), parallel to a statistically significant difference between the 1st and the 2nd assessment (F (1, 23) = 176,02, p = 0,00). 3

Full source tables for the MANOVAs along with effect sizes (multivariate tests and tests

within-subjects contrasts) for every dependent variable can be consulted in Appendix (tables 3 to 8). A correlation matrix of the dependent variables can be also consulted in Appendix (table 9).

10 As already referred, participants’ perception of intervention was assessed by interviewing on specific aspects. Interview themes included changes provoked by the intervention, as well as positive and negative aspects of the experience. Regarding perceived changes provoked by the intervention, most answers (71,9%) reflect a perception of some positive personal changes at motivational, cognitive, and behavioural level. Motivational changes imply the development of an intention to use a deep learning strategy. Cognitive changes involve increase of awareness on personal and general learning. Behavioural changes include the enrichment of the personal repertoire of learning strategies, its application (with focus on deep learning strategies and self-regulation strategies) or reinforcement of usual learning pattern. A minority of answers (23,8%) negates changes resulting from intervention. (or expresses doubts on these). Participants’ explanation of change absence refers that: learning is interwoven with identity; intervention occurs in a late phase of students’ academic career; change is spontaneous and so resistant to “external” induction; broad learning context dissuades a deep approach to learning and encourages a surface approach (because of work overload and traditional evaluation). A smaller minority of answers (4,4%) refers the impossibility of confirming or denying changes, due to the proximity of the intervention. Concerning the perception on positive aspects, answers refer to the following issues as intervention efficiency factors: opportunities for self-observation and self-evaluation; practical and organised activities (with personal exploration and knowledge construction); chance for self-regulation of action (case studies); opportunities for changing experiences and opinions; empathy, non-distance and supervision of the intervention agent; continuous and formative evaluation; and participants’ motivation for active involvement. This is confirmed by our informal observation of almost no resistance to intervention and of participants’ active involvement. Finally, perceived negative aspects include: initial motivation difficulties; comprehension problems on some activities; problems in self-evaluating and in validating this evaluation; difficulties in interpreting case-study results; work efficiency problems (due to: non previous similar experience; resistance to psychological analysis; high extension and low frequency of sessions; time pressure; and evaluation); rigidity of some activities (i.e. case-study); content-analysis looping; and recurrent application of questionnaires.

4. Discussion Considering changes in conception of learning, there was a reduction of the quantitative conception, and an increase on the qualitative conception after intervention. This change is supported by participants’ perception that intervention had an impact on their representation of learning. But results also suggest that intervention didn’t have an effect on participants’ representation on where learning occurs, apparently because most conceptualise learning as something which doesn’t happen only in the academic context. Attending to changes in approaches to learning, we observe a reduction (although non statistically significant) of the surface approach after intervention. A statistically significant reduction of this approach would probably require a substantial modification on the global learning context (which participants perceive as encouraging a surface

11 approach). Focusing the deep approach, it increases statistically significantly after intervention. The same occurs, but in a more discreet way, regarding achieving approach. Since this study didn’t involve a strong experimental control it is not possible to attribute changes exclusively to the intervention. Main concern was with ecological validity and avoiding “artificial experimentation with passive subjects”. As Parlett & Hamilton (1972, cit. Entwistle, 2000) stressed, students do not react to educational “treatments” as plants react to fertilisers. As the objective was to conduct a “naturalistic” study, results must be seen as specific to the studied context and as contributing to a growing global knowledge on how to intervene in this area. Moreover, since there was manipulation of several “independent” variables (as usual in this kind of studies), it is also not possible to attribute results to specific components, but to a complex system of conjugated variables. Furthermore, due to the absence of a follow-up we do not know anything on maintenance and transfer and sometimes a variance in approaches to learning doesn’t necessarily lead to a reorientation. Nevertheless, the results can be seen as a positive sign that intervention possibly contributed to observed changes. In general, these changes give ground to the use of metacognition and learning context modifications as a way of improving the learning process. Some participants have not benefited from the intervention, which can possibly be due to: short time to transform declarative knowledge on approaches and conceptions of learning in procedural knowledge; non-active involvement or resistance to intervention; rigid, and perceived as “secure and not risky”, learning patterns; preference for a prescriptive oriented intervention; or non-modification of broad learning context (i.e. work overload and traditional evaluation). This intervention is associated to an increase of awareness on learning. Possibly, this awareness lead to a diversification in learning methods and a development of selfregulation competencies, which could have been the mechanism for a change in approaches to learning. Results thus suggest the used procedure as a way of helping students to reflect and to self-regulate their learning processes, in order to develop their representations of learning (in direction of a qualitative conception) and to increase their deep and achieving approach to learning. Nevertheless, since there was not a statistically significant decrease in the surface approach, procedure must possibly be implemented along more extensive changes in the learning environment. This demands from the staff a reflective training and an involvement in action-research initiatives centred in conceptions of learning and approaches to learning. This experience also suggests to us the development of a short version of the used procedure, with omission of case-studies, inferring exercises and analysis of the conception of learning contextual dimension4. We have been applying this version with other groups, with results informally evaluated as positive. It would also be interesting to test the procedure in a workshop context, parallel to normal courses, and in an early stage, in order to help students adapt to higher education in a efficient and meaningful way.

4

Things that could be added are: plenary discussions, small group after-discussions; feedback about questionnaire results; control of writing reflection quality (i.e. content and clarity); and study-skills training.

12 Appendix Intervention questions and categories for self-analysing the answers (Each category was illustrated by an illustrative answer excerpt) Learning factors: I. What are the personal factors of learning? (1) Cognitive: Knowledge base; Cognitive processes; Learning strategies; Conception of learning; 2) Affective: Motivation; 3) Interpersonal: Family; Peers) II. What are the situational factors of learning? (1) Educational objectives; 2) Curriculum; 3) Teaching method; 4) Evaluation). Conceptions of learning: I. What is learning? (Quantitative Conception: 1) Acquisition of information; 2) Memorisation and reproduction; 3) Memorisation and application; Qualitative Conception: 4) Comprehension; 5) Comprehension & changing of personal views; 6) Changing as a person; Institutional Conception: 7) Obtaining grades) II. How learning occurs? (Quantitative Conception: 1) Picking and storing information; 2) Picking and storing information by repeating it; 3) Applying stored information; Qualitative Conception: 4) Analysing, relating and developing a perspective; 5) Generalising to other knowledge domains; 6) Assimilating-accommodating, changing continually and believing in one’s own learning capacity). III. Where learning occurs? (Restrictive Conception: 1) In school; Broad Conception: 2) In one’s own personal life; 3) In the world; 4) During life).

Motivation to learning (1): Instrumental motivation; 2) : Intrinsic Motivation; 3) Achievement motivation). I. What motivates you to learn? (1) Avoiding failure; 2) Fulfilling interests; 3) Showing excellence) II. How do you value time spent on learning? (1) Negatively)III. What is the relation of learning tasks with your personal interests? (1) Low; 2) High)IV. What is your degree of satisfaction with learning tasks? (1) Low; 2) High)V. What kind of learning contexts do you prefer? (1) Structured and facilitator of memorisation; 2) Facilitator of comprehension and of self-regulated learning)VI. How do you envision learning after finishing studies? (1) Restricted to the minimum; 2) Going beyond demands) VII. How do you normally feel before an examination? (1) Fear of failure; 3) Positive stress) Learning strategies (1) Surface strategy; 2) Deep strategy; 3) Intermediate strategy; 4) Achievement strategy) I. When studying what do you try to do? - i.e. where is your main intention focussed regarding the learning procedure? (1) Memorising mechanically; 2) Comprehending; 3) Memorising and comprehending; 4) Self-organising) II. How do you normally study? III. How would you characterise the way you organise your work?

13 IV. How would you characterise the way you organise your time? (1) Memorising by repeating; 2) Comprehending; 3) Strategic memorising or limited comprehending; 4) Methodical organising) V. When reading or studying where do you normally direct your attention to? - i.e. what do you search for mainly? (1) Literal information; 2) Meaning) VI. How do you normally consider information imparted by books or teachers? (1) Passive acceptance; 2) Critical analysis). Learning product: Why does it normally rain more on the sea-side of mountains compared to the landside? (1) Pre-structural: no relevant information; no relation to the answer; ungrounded conclusion; minimal consistence between conclusion and the rest of the answer. 2) Uni-structural: one relevant piece of information; reduced relation to the answer; one grounded conclusion; reduced consistency between conclusion and the rest of the answer. 3) Multi-structural: several unrelated relevant pieces of information; medium relation to the answer (through several unrelated aspects); grounded conclusion (on several unrelated pieces of information); medium consistency between conclusion and the rest of the answer. 4) Relational: several related relevant pieces of information; strong relation to the answer (through a principle/integrated concept); grounded open conclusion (on several related pieces of information); high consistency between conclusion and the rest of the answer. 5) Abstract: several related relevant pieces of information and no examples/hypothesis given; very strong relation to the answer (through hypothetical predictions); very open grounded conclusion (on several possible alternatives); maximum consistency between conclusion and the rest of the answer. Table 1 Changes in conception of learning Compared Assessment Moments 1st– 2nd 2 < 1 2 >1 2=1 2nd– 3rd 3 < 2 3>2 3=2 1st– 3rd 31 3=1

% 16.7 12.5 70.8 0 62.5 37.5 4.2 62.5 33.3

Referential W P -0.34

0.74

-3.41

0.00

-3.07

0.00

% 16.7 16.7 66.7 4.2 37.5 58.3 4.2 37.5 58.3

Dimensions Procedural W P 0.00

1.00

-2.24

0.02

-2.24

0.02

% 4.2 4.2 91.7 8.3 4.2 87.5 8.3 4.2 87.5

Contextual W P -0.45

0.65

-0.53

0.59

-1.07

0.29

Table 2 Means (m.), standard deviations (s.d.) and variance analysis results of approaches to learning (as a function of assessment moment) Approaches to Learning Surface Deep

1st m. s.d. 14.46 3,96 33.67 6,82

Assessment Moment 2nd 3rd m. s.d. m. s.d. 13.17 4,19 11.83 3,52 32.88 6,27 38.83 7,57

F (2, 22) multiv. 5.74 *** 30.33 *

F (1,23) (1st–2nd) 11.90 ** 27.94 *

F (1,23) (1st & 2nd – 3rd) 0.00 n.s. 44.09 *

14 Achieving

17.17 3,90

13.88 3,46

14.04

3,46

123.91 *

176.02 *

* p < 0.001 ** p < 0.01 *** p < 0.05

Graph 1 Conceptions of learning (referential dimension)

Graph 2 Approaches to learning

64.75 *

15 Table 3 Multivariate Testsc - Surface Approach to Learning Effect factor1

Pillai's Trace Wilks' Lambda Hotelling's Trace Roy's Largest Root a. Exact statistic b. Computed using alpha = ,05 c. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: factor1

Value ,343 ,657 ,522 ,522

F 5,739a 5,739a 5,739a 5,739a

Hypothesis df 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000

Error df 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000

Sig. ,010 ,010 ,010 ,010

Partial Eta Noncent. Squared Parameter ,343 11,477 ,343 11,477 ,343 11,477 ,343 11,477

Observed Powerb ,815 ,815 ,815 ,815

Table 4 Tests of Within-Subjects Contrasts - Surface Approach to Learning Source factor1

factor1 Linear Quadratic Error(factor1) Linear Quadratic a. Computed using alpha = ,05

Type III Sum of Squares 82,688 ,007 159,812 126,160

df 1 1 23 23

Mean Square 82,688 ,007 6,948 5,485

F 11,900 ,001

Partial Eta Squared ,341 ,000

Sig. ,002 ,972

Noncent. Parameter 11,900 ,001

Observed Powera ,910 ,050

Table 5 Multivariate Testsc – Deep Approach to Learning Effect factor1

Pillai's Trace Wilks' Lambda Hotelling's Trace Roy's Largest Root a. Exact statistic b. Computed using alpha = ,05 c. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: factor1

Value ,734 ,266 2,758 2,758

F 30,333a 30,333a 30,333a 30,333a

Hypothesis df 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000

Error df 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000

Sig. ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000

Partial Eta Squared ,734 ,734 ,734 ,734

Noncent. Parameter 60,666 60,666 60,666 60,666

Observed Powerb 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000

Table 6 Tests of Within-Subjects Contrasts - Deep Approach to Learning Source factor1 Error(factor1) a.

factor1 Linear Quadratic Linear Quadratic

Type III Sum of Squares 320,333 182,250 263,667 95,083

df 1 1 23 23

Mean Square 320,333 182,250 11,464 4,134

F 27,943 44,085

Partial Eta Squared ,549 ,657

Sig. ,000 ,000

Noncent. Parameter 27,943 44,085

Observed Powera ,999 1,000

Computed using alpha = ,05

Table 7 Multivariate Testsc – Achieving Approach to Learning Effect

factor1

Pillai's Trace Wilks' Lambda Hotelling's Trace Roy's Largest Root

Value ,918 ,082 11,264 11,264

Hypoth F esis df 123,907a 2,000 123,907a 2,000 123,907a 2,000 123,907a 2,000

Error df 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000

Sig. ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000

Partial Eta Squared ,918 ,918 ,918 ,918

Noncent. Parameter 247,813 247,813 247,813 247,813

Observed Powerb 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000

16 Source factor1 Error(factor1)

factor1 Linear Quadratic Linear Quadratic

Type III Sum of Squares 320,333 182,250 263,667 95,083

df 1 1 23 23

Mean Square 320,333 182,250 11,464 4,134

F 27,943 44,085

Sig. ,000 ,000

Partial Eta Squared ,549 ,657

Noncent. Parameter 27,943 44,085

Observed Powera ,999 1,000

a. Exact statistic b. Computed using alpha = ,05 c. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: factor1

Table 8 Tests of Within-Subjects Contrasts - Achieving Approach to Learning Source factor1

factor1 Linear Quadratic Error(factor1) Linear Quadratic a. Computed using alpha = ,05

Type III Sum of Squares 117,187 47,840 15,312 16,993

df 1 1 23 23

Mean Square 117,187 47,840 ,666 ,739

F 176,020 64,752

Table 9 Correlation matrix of the dependent variables – Approaches to Learning Approach to Learning

Surface

Deep

Achieving

Assessment Moment 1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd

Surface 1st 1 0,62 0,51 -

2nd 0,62 1 0,65 -

Approach to Learning by Assessment Moment Deep Achieving 3rd 0,58 0,65 1 -

1st 1 ,884 ,784 -

2nd 0,88 1 0,88 -

3rd 0,78 0,86 1 -

1st 1 0,96 0,96

2nd 0,96 1 0,94

3rd 0,96 0,94 1

Sig. ,000 ,000

Partial Eta Squared Nonc ,884 ,738

17 Acknowledgment Language revision by Alina Constantinidi and Tom Kundert

References Balasooriya, C. D., Hughes C. & Toohey, S. (2009). Impact of a new integrated medicine program on students’approaches to learning. Higher Education Research & Development, 28 (3), 289–302. Beckwith, J.B. (1991). Approaches to learning, their context and relationship to assessment performance. Higher Education, 22, 17-30. Biggs, J.B. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Melbourne: ACER Biggs, J. B. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32 (2), 347-367. 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, 133–149 Biggs, J. B. e Moore P. J. (1993). The process of learning (3rd. Ed.). N.Y.: Prentice Hall. Biggs, J. B. & Rihn, B. A. (1984). The effects of intervention on deep and surface approaches to learning. In J. R. Kirby (Ed.), Cognitive strategies and educational performance (pp.279-293). Orlando: Academic Press. Blundell, S. (1995). Should we always be aiming to promote deep approaches to learning? An evaluation of the ISL questionnaire in practice. In G. Gibbs (Ed.), Improving student learning through assessment and evaluation (pp. 203-211).. Oxford: The Oxford Centre for Staff Development. Boulton-Lewis, G.M., Wilss, L. & Mutch, S. (1994). Teachers as adult learners: their knowledge of their own learning and implications for teaching. Higher Education, 31, 93-106. Cano, F. (2007). Approaches to learning and study orchestrations in high school students. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 22 (2), 131-151 Duarte, A. M. (2007). Conceptions of learning and approaches to learning in Portuguese students. Higher Education. 54,781-794. Edmunds, R. & Richardson, J. T. E. (2009). Conceptions of learning, approaches to studying and personal development in UK higher education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 295-309

18 English, L., Luckett, P. & Mladenovic, R. (2004). Changing the learning environment to promote deep learning approaches in first year accounting students. Accounting Education: an international journal 13 (4), 461-488. Entwistle, N.J. (2000). Approaches to studying and levels of understanding: the influences of teaching and assessment. In J.C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: handbook of theory and research - vol.15 (pp.156-218). N.Y.: Springer Entwistle, N., Odor, P. & Anderson, C. (1987). Antecipating the experience of higher education through computer simulation. Higher Education, 16, 337-335. Entwistle, N. J. & Peterson, E. R. (2004). Conceptions of learning and knowledge in higher education: Relationships with study behavior and influences of learning environments. International Journal of Educational Research, 41, 407-428 Entwistle, N.J. & Ramsden, N. (1983). Understanding student learning. London & Camberra: Croom Helm. Entwistle, N. & Wilson, J.D. (1977). Degrees of exelence: the academic achievement game. London: Hodder & Stoughton. Entwistle, N., Kozeki, B. & Tait, H. (1989). Pupils’ perceptions of school and teachers. I – Identifying the underlying dimensions. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 59, 326-339. Flores, J.G. (1994). Análisis de datos cualitativos - aplicaciones a la investigación educativa (Analysis of qualitative data – applications to educational research). Barcelona: PPV. Gibbs, G. (1992). Improving the quality of student learning: theory and practice. Bristol: TES. Gordon, C. & Debus, R. (2002). Developing deep learning approaches and personal teaching efficacy within a preservice teacher education context. British Joumal of Educational Psychology 72 (4), 483-51. Hambleton, I. R., Foster, W. H. & Richardson, J. T. (1998). Improving student learning using the personalized system of instruction. Higher Education, 35, 187-203 Hounsell, D. (1979). Learning to learn: research and development in student learning. Higher Education, 8, 453-469. Kember, D., Biggs, J. & Leung D.Y.P. (2004). Examining the multidimensionality of approaches to learning through the development of a revised version of the Learning Process Questionnaire. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 261–280 Marton, F. (1981). Phenomenography - Describing conceptions of the world around us. Instructional Science, 10, 177-200.

19 Marton, F., Dall’Alba, G. & Beaty, E. (1993). Conceptions of learning. International Journal of educational Research, 19 (3), 277-300. Marton, F. & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning - I.Outcome and process. Brittish Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4-11. Norusis, M. J. (1988). SPSS/PC+ Advanced Statistics V2.0. Chicago: SPSS Inc. Papinczak, T., Young, L., Groves, M. & Haynes, M. (2008). Effects of a Metacognitive Intervention on Students’ Approaches to Learning and Self-Efficacy in a First Year Medical Course. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 13 (2), 213-232 Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge Richardson, J. T. E. (2004). Students’ Approaches to Learning and Teachers’ Approaches to Teaching in Higher Education. Educational Psychology, 25 (6), 673–680 Säljö, R. (1979). Learning about learning. Higher Education, 8, 443-451. Sparkes, J. J. (1993). Matching teaching methods to educational aims in distance education. In D. Keegan (Ed.) Teorethical principles of distance education (pp. 135151). London: Routledge Trigwell, K. & Prosser, M. (1991). Improving the quality of student learning: the influence of learning context and student approaches to learning on learning outcomes. Higher Education, 22 (3), 251-266.