Looking at Learning Approaches From the Angle of Student Profiles: Combining Capacity and Motivation

• In Event: On the Dynamics and Relatedness of Students’ Approaches to Learning in Higher Education

Abstract

This study starts with investigating the relation of three variables with students’ approaches to learning. The first variable is the contextual variable perceived workload (Kember, 2004). Secondly, the relationships between two student characteristics and approaches to learning will be examined, more specifically, motivation for learning and WMC (working memory capacity) have been selected (Chamorro-Premuzic & Arteche, 2008). Student profiles will be identified based on the WMC and motivation of the student. It will be examined if these different profiles differ in their approaches to learning. Finally, we will explore if the different student profiles experience a different influence of workload on their approaches to learning.

In total 108 second year bachelor students studying educational sciences participated. This quasi-experimental study was conducted within the course “Theory and practice of group work”. At the beginning of the course, students’ typical approaches to learning, their motivation for studying the course and their WMC were measured. Students were given two assignments designed to have a different workload. After each assignment they filled out a questionnaire regarding their perceived workload and approaches to learning. To investigate the relations between the variables several statistical analysis were performed: paired samples t-test, correlations, cluster analysis and ANOVA.

Results show a relation for workload and motivation, but not for working memory capacity. By means of a cluster analysis 3 student profiles were identified based on working memory capacity and motivation. Students characterised by high working memory capacity and average motivation scored higher on surface approaches and lower on deep approaches than students with high autonomous motivation. These latter students also score higher on deep approaches than students characterised by low working memory capacity. Finally, it was found that all student profiles responded the same to the influence of workload. In contrast with prior research, deep approaches were higher when workload was high.

The person-centred approach in this study is likely to yield more diagnostic and detailed information concerning students approaches to learning, because it allows an examination of the additive or interactive effect of WMC (ability) and motivation (non-ability student characteristics) (Vansteenkiste, Sierens, Soenens, Luyckx & Lens, 2009).

Authors

• Eva Kyndt, University of Antwerp

• Filip J.R.C. Dochy, University of Leuven

• Katrien Struyven, Vrije Universiteit Brussel

• Eduardo C. Cascallar, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven