CC BY-NC-ND
0Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 209 (2015) 439 - 446
International conference "Education, Reflection, Development", ERD 2015, 3-4 July 2015,
Cluj-Napoca, Romania
The relation between prospective teachers' beliefs and conceptions of learning and their academic performance
Alina Felicia Romana, Camelia Nadia Branb *
a,b Aurel Vlaicu University of Arad,Revolutiei Blvd., 77, Arad 310330, Romania
Abstract
In order to highlight students" conception of learning in correlation with their learning approaches, we have applied the questionnaire "Approach to Learning and Study Skills Inventory" (ALSSI) developed by Entwistle and Ramsden in 1981 to pre-service teachers. Self-assessment in achieving high results is in close connection to students' conceptions of learning. If students get a high score using deep approach or strategic approach, then it is likely for them to estimate high performance in that subject. The higher the students" scores in surface approach to learning are, the better they will estimate poor results in pedagogical disciplines.
© 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.Org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-reviewunderresponsibilityofthe ScientificCommitteeofERD2015
Keywords: beliefs, conceptions of learning, learning approaches, academic performance
1. Introduction
The analysis of some of the learning approaches used in higher education started from N. Entwistle' s conception (1998) that the development of perceptions regarding students' learning (from memorizing to transforming) and intellectual development (from dualism to relativism) are factors that influence the option for a certain approach to learning. They are based on the argument that a learner doesn't approach leaning in just one way. Other research emphasizes the role of the educational environment as the third factor of influence regarding the approaches to
* Camelia Nadia Bran. Tel.: +0-402-572-19555; fax: 0-402-572-19555 E-mail address: brancamelia@gmail.com
1877-0428 © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific Committee of ERD 2015
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.244
learning. This involves the nature of the working task, the circumstances in which performance will take place, provision of data concerning the task etc. (Bigss, 1987). Starting from the above, we have identified three approaches to learning.
Deep approach to learning implies critical examination of new facts and ideas, as well as tying them into existing cognitive structures and making numerous correlations between ideas. Students promoting a deep approach to learning look for the meaning of the information, focusing on the central argument or on concepts needed to solve a problem. They are able to distinguish between argument and evidence and make connections between different modules/chapters/units. Deep approach to learning and especially strategic approach to learning involve students' good knowledge of the task, and of the ways of solving it efficiently. They also mean good planning skills, monitoring and assessment of resources and processes involved in learning. The premises for metacognition are thus created.
Surface approach to learning means accepting new facts and ideas uncritically and trying to store them as isolated, unconnected items; relying on rote learning; focusing on outwards signs and the formulae needed to solve a problem; receiving information passively; failing to distinguish principles from examples; treating parts of modules and programs as separate parts. Strategic approach to learning involves targeting the students' learning process towards achieving maximum academic performance through objective means of grading. Students rely both on rote learning and meaningful learning, depending on the assessment task. They use systematic learning methods to receive the highest mark possible. Students have two focus points: the academic material and the requirements of the assessment.
When speaking about prospective teachers, it would be expected from them to be more aware of their learning approach. It is also expected that they had more self-assessment competencies than other category of students. The development of professional competences for the teaching career, the development of self-assessment and reflexive judgments are constant goals throughout the entire teacher training program.
Professors should take into account the students' personality, the sum of all internal and external factors which influence directly or indirectly the process of understanding and learning and regard it as an attribute which defines the institutional, socio-cultural, economic context in which a student develops and shapes his personality.
The inverted connection is conducted through:
• self-correction sheets- as student - teaching material interaction,
• appreciation of students' interaction as manner of peer correction,
• dialogue management as means of guided communication.
• self-assessment: as exercise by means of which one can observe errors, can understand the manner of thinking, development of motivations and personal values, etc. It is also a procedure which enables teachers to analyze the students' perception of the subject and the way they relate to it. „Self-assessment attitude is already an important factor of progress in schools and the acquisition of this ability is a primary educational objective". (Cardinet, 1994, p. 44-45)
The demands of formative assessment highlight that it has a didactic efficiency from a cognitive and affective point of view because it brings about students to assess their own representations, internal and external motivations. It also enhances applications by involving the development of self-assessment. Self-assessment prepares students to play the role of grown-ups and self-assess their interests thus becoming a privileged assessment tool among other assessment methods.
The regulation system of formative assessment has three functions (De Ketele, 1992, p.2) whose aim is to:
• recognize success;
• identify and recognize errors;
• rethink strategies and improve them.
Formative assessment as complex process turns errors into a study object for students and not a guilt or resignation object, fact that determines the development of self-regulation and self-assessment processes.
Researchers have highlighted the development process of active, independent learning abilities by granting more time to formative (extended) assessment in the management of activities. Formative assessment is considered „an
important means of self-knowledge, self-control, self-appreciation of one's evolution and self-regulation of cognitive behavior.
2.The research methodology
We have designed and conducted a study on the prospective teacher students between 2013 and 2014 in order to analyze the importance of their conceptions of learning, learning approaches and self-assessment competencies.
2.1. The Research objectives were:
01-identifying the way of approaching independent academic learning through students' attendance at teacher training program (deep, strategic and superficial);
02- Highlighting the students' perception of learning;
03-Investigating the students' self-assessment skills;
04-Highlighting particular aspects which occur during self-assessment: representations, attitudes, dysfunctions.
05-Identifying or not, certain significant differences related to self-assessment, according to the students' field of study.
2.2. Research hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: If students perceive learning as transformation, then they have a deep approach to learning.
Hypothesis 2: If students possess self-assessment skills, then they have a positive representation of the learning-assessment process.
Types of courses specific to Specialization Number Percentage %
teaching module
Engineering 112 26,67
Optional Economic Sciences 104 24,77
Human Sciences 142 33,81
Compulsory Exact Sciences 62 14,75
Total 210 100%
2.3. Research Methods and Instruments
In our research, we have used the inquiry method and therefore used two research instruments: a scale for the identification of attitudes and perceptions of self-assessment and the questionnaire Approach to Learning and Study Skills Inventory". This scale contains 40 statements related to the understanding of learning process and the way it relates to self-assessment.
The first instrument used was the questionnaire "Approach to Learning and Study Skills Inventory" (ALSSI). This is an adaptation of the questionnaire "Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students" (ASSIST). ASSIST is based on ASI questionnaire (Approaches to Studying Inventory) developed by Entwistle, Ramsden , in 1981, for approaches to students' learning.
The questionnaire has three sections.
Section A - Students' conception of learning. In this section there are 6 items that describe a particular conception of learning. Items a, c, e describe the rote learning, and items b, d, f refer to learning as understanding and development.
Section B - The learning approach contains 52 items in Assist version, and 53 items in the proposed version, which will be grouped into three categories during interpretation: deep approach, surface approach and strategic approach. For each approach, items can be grouped into several subscales. Some are major, and thus defining for that category, and others are complementary which can be modified according to the purpose of research.
Section C- preference for different types of courses and teaching styles contains 5 items grouped into the scale for "promoting understanding" - items b, c, f, g and four items which may be included in the scale " transmission of information" - items a, d , e, h..
2. Results
The results show that the approach mostly used by students is the surface approach (42.4%), followed by the strategic approach (29%) and deep approach (28.1%).
We have realized that we get different results depending on the compulsory or optional character of the courses in the teaching module. Thus, if the students are required to do the course compulsory, results are similar to those outlined above, surface approach is mostly used, followed by the strategic approach. Deep approach is not much used. Even if the students have the teaching module as an optional course, most of them use the surface approach followed by deep approach. The least used is the strategic approach. The results of approaching learning based on faculty and field of study show that surface approach is predominantly used, except for students in Human Sciences, for whom strategic approach prevails, followed by surface approach and deep approach. For the students from other faculties surface approach prevails, followed by deep approach and strategic approach.
Table no. 2. Type of predominant approach to learning according to its compulsory character
Compulsory Optional
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
Deep approach 48 23,5 70 32,4
Strategic approach 70 34,3 52 24,1
Surface approach 84 41,2 94 43,5
Missing values 2 1,0 - -
Total 204 100,0 216 100,0
Inferential analyses reveal a statistically significant effect of interaction between the type of learning and the compulsory/optional character of the course (chi square = 6,858 where p = .032). Students who attend optionally the teaching module approach learning in a superficial manner. One third perceive learning as understanding, thus seeking to find the meaning of what they study, setting goals and integrating new acquisitions in the system of the previous ones. This type of students is less interested in getting high marks; they don't learn for assessment. These results can be the consequence of a connection between motivation and learning approach. Students who choose to attend the courses of the teaching module have to pay for them; consequently they have well set goals and higher expectations from these courses and their own quality as future educators.
For the approach to learning according to the profile of the faculty, descriptive results show that surface learning is widely used, except for students enrolled in the Faculty of Human Sciences, who prefer a strategic approach, followed by surface approach and deep approach. The students from other faculties prefer the surface approach, followed by the deep approach and lastly the strategic approach.
Engineering Economic sciences Human sciences Exact sciences
f P F P F P fP
Deep approach 32 28,6 38 36,5 34 23,9 14 22,6
Strategic approach 30 26,8 22 21,2 58 40,8 12 19,4
Surface approach 50 44,6 44 42,3 48 33,8 36 58,1
Missing values - - - - 2 1,4 - -
Total 112 100,0 104 100,0 142 100,0 62 100,0
Below, we have the representations in percentage for students enrolled in several faculties: Engineering, Economic Sciences, Human Sciences and Exact Sciences.
Because the value of chi square test is 21,649 to p = .001 we can notice a statistically significant effect of interaction between the type of learning approach and the profile of the faculty. It means that learning approach differs significantly for students enrolled in faculties with different profiles.
It is gladdening that students from Humanities, unlike other students, do not have a superficial approach to learning but a strategic one. They plan their learning activities, manage their time and resources, monitor and assess their progress so as to get the best possible result in the assessment tasks. On the other hand, the results of our investigation show that more than 75% of students from the Humanities do not show cognitive interest, don't link new acquisitions to the existing ones, don't access supplementary sources of information. They only make the effort required by "passing the exam". Students enrolled in other faculties show little interest for planning, organization, and assessment compared to expected results and exam marks. Most of them relate superficially to learning, but used deep approach learning strategies, without intrinsic or assessment motivation.
The correlation study within the AIIAS questionnaire shows that students don't regard learning as memorizing, or transformation, but relate to learning as a process based transformation, or as a process based on memorizing information.
We can distinguish between students who have a deep approach to learning and those who have a superficial one. For the first category, learning is both understanding and memorizing, while the last consider that learning means only memorizing. Students with a deep approach to learning prefer the activated pedagogical context, which is in favor of understanding, while those with a superficial approach are in favor of a passive pedagogical context, where information is transmitted by the teacher. Self-assessment in achieving high results is in close connection to students' conceptions of learning. If the students get a high score using deep approach or strategic approach, then it is likely for them to estimate high performance in that subject. The higher is the score students get in surface approach to learning, the better they will estimate poor results in pedagogy. There are significantly positive correlations between age and linking of ideas and between cognitive interests and organizing the study. There are significantly negative correlations between age and attention to requests, the contents of the curriculum and transmission of information. The more the age of the subjects increases, the more increased is the efficiency of organizing the study and also that of learning achieved by correlating ideas and based on cognitive interest on the topic. Along with the age increase, we have noticed a decrease in limiting learning to the compulsory contents in the curriculum and a decrease of the interest towards evaluation requirements and preference for a passive pedagogical context.
For a more accurate analysis of the relationship between the investigated aspects, we have calculated the correlation coefficient between the subscales of the questionnaire. We have obtained statistically significant correlations at a threshold of p<.01 for „learning as memorizing" and „learning as understanding" with scales „favoring understanding" and „transmission of information", namely self-assessment of performance. (Table 4. below).
Table no. 4. Correlation coefficients between the scales of perception of learning and preference for various
courses, namely self-assessment
A1 A2 C1 C2 D
A1 R 1,000 ,440 ,198 ,197 ,172
P , ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
A2 R ,440 1,000 ,232 ,143 ,182
P ,000 , ,000 ,003 ,000
The positive correlation between these two perceptions of learning shows that students don't see them as dichotomies. A higher score in learning as transformation determines an increase in scores for „learning as memorizing." The higher is the students' approval of the statements of the questionnaire which describe perceptions
of learning, the higher is the estimated performance. Thus, the students adhesion to statements related to the perception of learning are reflected in their expectations for high performance.
Table no. 5 Correlation coefficients between the scales of learning approach, preference for certain learning styles
V B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 B11 B12 B13
C1 R ,003 ,322 ,318 ,310 ,216 ,279 ,268 ,097 ,223 ,224 -071 -047 -092 -110
P ,948 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,048 ,000 ,000 ,144 ,337 ,061 ,025
C2 R -105 ,103 ,048 ,128 -026 ,138 ,165 ,228 ,163 ,090 ,266 ,353 ,256 ,244
P ,003 ,036 ,324 ,009 ,597 ,005 ,001 ,000 ,001 ,067 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
D R ,948 ,224 ,136 ,148 ,042 ,253 ,126 ,165 ,258 ,218 -074 -002 -114 -156
P -105 ,000 ,005 ,002 ,395 ,000 ,010 ,001 ,000 ,000 ,133 ,973 ,019 ,001
The preference for the learning style which favors understanding correlates positively and significantly with scales included in the dimension „deep approach", namely „strategic approach to learning". For surface approach to learning we have only a significant and negative correlation between favoring understanding and fear of failure (r=-0.110 la p=.025). Students who prefer an activating pedagogical context get high scores at deep and strategic approach to learning and show no fear of failure.
The preference for pedagogical context based on information transmission correlates significantly positive with the following aspects of learning approach: seeking meaning, argumentation, organization, study time management, attention to requirements, motivation and focus on results. Significantly positive correlations can be identified between transmitting information and all scales referring to surface approach to learning. There is a significantly negative correlation between the preference for the pedagogical context based on transmission of information and the age of the subjects. The older they are, the higher is the rejection towards passive transmission of information. Students who prefer the passive learning style try to find the meaning of what they have to study, arguments and proofs supporting the information delivered by teachers. They also use planning and organization strategies, are motivated to reach high scores in exams. The correlational study reveals that students who have a superficial approach to learning prefer the passive teaching style, based on transmission of information. The pedagogical context influences less the students who have a deep and strategic approach to learning.
The above listed table shows also the correlations between self-assessment and scales referring to approaches to learning. In this case, self-assessment correlates significantly positive (a threshold of p<.01) with all scales of deep and strategic approach to learning, and less with the cognitive interest. The higher the subjects' performance in deep and strategic approach is, the higher is the anticipated performance. The subjects' interest and curiosity for the courses of the teaching module is not reflected by the anticipated performance in that course. We have significantly negative correlations between self-assessment of performance and the relevance in the contents of the syllabus, namely fear of failure. If students anticipate that they get good results, then they are less dependent on the compulsory contents, access complementary contents and show a lower fear of failure.
After analyzing the appreciation scale, we can highlight the level of students' self-assessment ability development, according to their score. Most subjects (54,3%) scored between the limits of 30-39, which reveals a developing self-assessment competence. A lower number of students (15,7%) prove good self-assessment competence. Students in Mathematics-Informatics (66,6%) possess self-assessment skills that prove the fact that they easily identify the indicators and the objectives of assessment. Though, they are undergraduate students, it is of concern that a percentage of 29,8% students scored under 29 points, proving low self-assessment competences or lack of interest towards learning.
It is possible for students with a low level of self-assessment competence to face difficulties in their teaching activity because the success implies, in this case, a reflexive approach to the formative and personal development process.
We have grouped the items of the assessment scale in five representative groups to identify relevant information regarding the process of self-assessment.
The first chart shows the students' understanding of intentions, objectives and criteria for success, their ability to identify or to develop criteria, the way they relate to the teacher's assessment process and the way they project the expectations regarding performance in learning. We notice that many subjects want to learn how to assess themselves, identifying their problems in this respect.
Figure 1. Graphic representation of scored percentage regarding the understanding of intentions, objectives and success criteria
Students express specific short-term objectives for the learning activity with difficulty, preferring to state general goals.
Figure. 2. Graphic representation of scored percentage regarding the setting of objectives
■ more likely to be true
■ more likely to be false
Figure 3. Graphic representation of scored percentage regarding the answer to the feedback received from teachers and group mates
The action side of the self-assessment process is represented by the choices students made in the items presented in the chart above. We notice that most of them prefer to receive immediate feed-back when they perform an activity and then eliminate errors or blanks. We find ourselves in the situation of representing the inter-assessing act with poor cooperation between students, because 60% of the respondents state that they are not asked to give explanation to their mates who face learning difficulties.
Conclusions
Following the data analysis we can state that Hypothesis no.1: If students perceive learning as transformation, then they have a deep approach to learning is partially confirmed because the students don't regard learning as memorizing, or transformation, but according to the pedagogical context and the teacher's requirements, they relate to learning as a process based on transformation, or as a process based on memorizing information.
Hypothesis no. 2: If students have well developed self-assessment competences, then they make a positive presentation of the learning and assessment process is confirmed because the students' answers highlight that they analyze learning more carefully and responsibly through self-assessment.
We suggest the following ideas for the stimulation of deep learning and the development of self-assessment competences:
• Changing attitudes and negative perceptions of future teachers towards didactic assessment;
• Designing certain assessment and self-assessment criteria and standards in collaboration with students;
• Developing a reflexive attitude regarding the process of learning;
• Developing a reflexive attitude regarding teaching-learning-assessing activities;
• Developing a self-reflexive attitude towards self-reflexive competence;
• Being aware of testing errors and negative assessment methods;
• Acquisition of assessment and self-assessment strategies in an inductive manner;
• Planning practical activities of inter and self-assessment that ensure all necessary quality, diversity and quantity conditions for developing and strengthening the abilities of self-assessment;
• Permanent completion of inter and self-assessment exercises based on unitary accepted criteria.
The analysis of research results brought about the identification of certain aspects that enhance the process of developing students' self-assessment competence:
• Changing attitudes and negative perceptions of future teachers towards didactic assessment;
• Designing certain criteria and standards of assessment and self-assessment in collaboration with students;
• Developing a reflexive attitude regarding the process of learning;
• Developing a reflexive attitude regarding teaching-learning-assessing activities;
• Developing a self-reflexive attitude towards self-reflexive competence;
• Being aware of docimologic errors and negative assessment methods;
• Acquisition of assessment and self-assessment strategies in an inductive manner;
• Planning practical activities of inter and self-assessment that insure all necessary quality, diversity and quantity conditions for developing and strengthening the abilities of self-assessment;
• Permanent completion of inter and self-assessment exercises based on unitary accepted criteria.
We have emphasized the need for students' training to manage their own learning based on academic performance and effectiveness (achieving learning objectives with an optimum consumption of resources and use of activities and procedures appropriate to their own learning needs). The functions of corporate management such as planning, organizing, monitoring and evaluation intercross with the processes of metacognitive self-regulation identified by researchers.
References
Biggs, J., (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying, research monograph. Australian Council for Educational Research, Radford House.
Cardinet, J., (1994). Évaluation scolaire et pratique. Universite de Boeck, 5e édition, Bruxelles.
De Ketele, J.-M., (1992). La problématique de l'évaluation. Actualité Tertiaire. Economie-GestionCommunication, 13, 2-9
Entwistle, N., (2000). Promoting Deep Learning Through Teaching and Assessment: Conceptual Frameworks and Educational Contexts. Paper
presented at the TLRP Conference, Leicester (www.ed.ac.uk/etl/ publications.html). Entwistle, N., Ramsden, P.R. (1983). Understanding Student Learning. Croom Helm, London.
Tait, H., Entwistle, N.J., & Mc Cune, V., (1998). ASSIST: a reconceptualisation of the Approaches to Studying Inventory. in C. Rust (ed.) Improving students as learners Oxford: Oxford Brookes University, The Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development.
