Journal of Advances in Education Research

Students’ Approaches to Learning: Validating Study Processes Questionnaire for Use in Congolese Setting

Download PDF (399.1 KB) PP. 109 - 120 Pub. Date: May 8, 2018

DOI: 10.22606/jaer.2018.32005

Author(s)

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

Abstract

Learning outcomes are mostly determined by students’ approaches to learning (SAL). The Study Process Questionnaire (SPQ) is one of the most used instruments assessing SAL. Researchers from various contexts have either validated or used the SPQ. A few studies in African contexts have investigated its psychometrics properties or used it as such. However, none of them – to the best of our knowledge –stem from a French African context. The current paper fills this gap by exploring the reliability and the validity of the R-SPQ-2F (SPQ revised version) in a Congolese setting. In line with the original findings, the main scales (Deep and Surface) were found to be acceptably reliable whereas the subscales reliability was questioned. At the dimension level, the construct validity was confirmed though items-based analysis showed disappointing results. The results also revealed a positive correlation between both main scales. Findings are discussed for further investigations.

Keywords

Learning approaches, Instruments adaptation, Reliability and validity, Confirmatory factor analysis

References

[1] 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.

[2] 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.

[3] Beatty, P.C. & Willis, G.B.(2007). Research synthesis: the practice of cognitive interviewing. Public Opinion Quarterly, 71(2), 287-311.

[4] Biggs, J. B. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.

[5] 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.

[6] 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.

[7] 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.

[8] 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.

[9] 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.

[10] 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.

[11] 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.

[12] 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.

[13] Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of Learning for Instruction(3rded.). New York: Pearson Education.

[14] Elen, J., & Lowyck, J. (2000). Instructional metacognitive knowledge: A qualitative study on conceptions of freshmen about instruction. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32, 421-444.

[15] 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.

[16] Entwistle, N. J., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. London: Croom Helm.

[17] 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.

[18] Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

[19] 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.

[20] 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.

[21] 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.

[22] 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.

[23] Hu, L-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424–453.

[24] 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.

[25] Jackson, D. L., Gillaspy, J. A., & Purc-Stephenson, R. (2009). Reporting practices in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 14(1), 6-23.

[26] 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.

[27] Kember, D. (1996). The intention to both memorize and understand: Another approach to learning. Higher Education, 31, 341-354.