Journal of Advances in Education Research
Students’ Approaches to Learning: Validating Study Processes Questionnaire for Use in Congolese Setting
- Madeleine Kapinga-Mutatayi*
KULeuven, Centre for Instructional Psychology and Technology, 3000, Leuven Belgium; Unikin, Faculté de Psychologie et Sciences de l’éducation
- Pierre Mukendi
Unikin, Faculté de Psychologie et Sciences de l’Education, Kinshasa/DRCongo
- Jan Elen
KULeuven, Centre for Instructional Psychology and Technology, 3000, Leuven/ Belgium
 Asikainen, H., Parpala, A., Lindblom-Yl?nne, S., Vanthournout, G., & Coertjens, L. (2014). The development of approaches to learning and perceptions of the teaching-learning environment during bachelor level studies and their relation to study success. Higher Education Studies, 4(4), 24-36.
 Bandalos, D. L. (2002). The effects of item parceling on goodness-of-fit and parameter estimate bias in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(1), 78–102.
 Beatty, P.C. & Willis, G.B.(2007). Research synthesis: the practice of cognitive interviewing. Public Opinion Quarterly, 71(2), 287-311.
 Biggs, J. B. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.
 Biggs, J., Kember, D., & Leung, Y.P. (2001). The revised two-Factor study process questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 133-149.
 Bliuc, A.M., Ellis, R.A., Goodyear, P., & Hendres, D.M. (2011a). The role of social identification as university student in learning: Relationships between students’ social identity, approaches to learning and academic achievement. Educational Psychology, 31(5), 559-574.
 Bliuc,A.M., Ellis, R.A., Goodyear, P., & Hendres, D.M.(2011b). Understanding student learning in context: Relationships between university students’ social identity, approaches to learning, and academic performance. European Journal of Psychology and Education, 26, 417-433.
 Brancato, G., Macchia, S., Murgia, M., Signore, M., Simeoni, G., Blanke, K., K?rner, T., Nimmergut, A., Lima, P., Paulino, R., &Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik, J. (2006). Handbook of Recommended Practices for Questionnaire Development and Testing in the European Statistical System. Retrieved from https://www.istat.it/files/ 2013/12/Handbook_questionnaire_development?_2006.pdf.
 Chan, C. K. K., & Rao, N. (2009). Revisiting the Chinese learner: Changing contexts, changing education. (1st ed.). University of Hong Kong: Springer Comparative Education Research Centre.
 Coertjens, L., Vanthournout, G., Lindblom-Yl?nne, S., & Postareff, L. (2016). Understanding individual differences in approaches to learning across courses: A mixed method approach. Learning and Individual Differences, 51, 69–80.
 Coté, D. J., Graillon, A., Waddell, G., Lison, C., & Noel, M. F. (2006). L’approche d’apprentissage dans un curriculum médical préclinique basé sur l’apprentissage par problèmes.[Medical students’ approaches to learning based on problem-solving performances]. Pédagogie Médicale, 7, 201-212.
 Desimone, L. M., & Le Floch, K. C. (2004). Are we asking the right questions? Using cognitive interviews to improve surveys in education research. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(1), 1-22.
 Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of Learning for Instruction(3rded.). New York: Pearson Education.
 Elen, J., & Lowyck, J. (2000). Instructional metacognitive knowledge: A qualitative study on conceptions of freshmen about instruction. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32, 421-444.
 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, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. London: Croom Helm.
 Entwistle, N., Tait, H., & McCune, V. (2000). Patterns of response to approaches to studying inventory across contrasting groups and contexts. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 15(1), 33-48.
 Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
 Fryer, L. K., Ginns, P., Walker, R. A. & Nakao, K. (2012). The adaptation and validation of the CEQ and the R-SPQ-2F to the Japanese tertiary environment. Educational Psychology82, (4), 549–563.
 Gijbels, D., Segers, M.,& Struyf, E. (2008). Constructivist learning environments and the (im) possibility to change students' perceptions of assessment demands and approach to learning. Instructional Science, 32(5,6), 431-443.
 Gijbels, D., Coertjens, L., Vanthournout, G., Struyf, E., & Van Petegem, P. (2009). Changing students' approaches to learning: A two‐year study within a university teacher training course.EducationalStudies, 35(5), 503-513.
 Gijbels, D., Van de Watering, G., Dochy, F. & Van den Bossche, P. (2005). The relationship between students' approaches to learning and learning outcomes. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 20(4), 327-341.
 Hu, L-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424–453.
 Hu, L-T., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
 Jackson, D. L., Gillaspy, J. A., & Purc-Stephenson, R. (2009). Reporting practices in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 14(1), 6-23.
 Justicia, 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 analysis at item level. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 13(3), 355-372.
 Kember, D. (1996). The intention to both memorize and understand: Another approach to learning. Higher Education, 31, 341-354.