Age, Maturity and Gender, and the Propensity towards Surface and Deep Learning Approaches amongst University Students

Warren Lake,William Boyd

doi:10.4236/ce.2015.622242

Abstract

The approach that a student takes towards their study has a substantial impact on the quality of their learning and academic success—a deep rather than surface approach more likely to be associated with academic success. Using the validated study processes questionnaire developed by Biggs et al. (2001), this study surveys over 500 undergraduate students across one university to examine patterns of learning approaches against age, maturity and gender. Analysis indicates that age is important in terms of the tendency towards adopting a deep or surface learning approach; mature age students are more likely to adopt a deep learning approach and less likely to adopt a surface approach. There are no significant differences in deep or surface approach scores between genders. However, in relation to maturity, both mature age males and females score a statistically higher score on deep motive compared to usual age females. However, this is not the case for usual age males, with no significant difference found. This same pattern also occurred for the deep strategy subscale component. Mature males and females, as well being more motivated to adopt deep learning approaches, undertake strategies that are more likely to lead to a higher scale scores compared to usual age females but not usual age males.

Highlights

Maintaining high academic standards in today’s larger and more diversified university classes presents majorHow to cite this paper: Lake, W., & Boyd, W. (2015)
The natural abilities of students to adapt to study at university in contemporary times are thought to be greatly influenced by the both in the approach a student takes towards their learning and the enabling conditions set by teachers, rather than a student’s fixed characteristics (Biggs, Kember, & Leung, 2001; Holley & Oliver, 2010; Sherry, Thomas, & Chui, 2010)
Learning approach studies are first popularised by Marton and Säljö in the mid-1980s (Case & Marshall, 2004; Marton & Säljö, 1984), which lead to the development of the Approaches to Study Inventory (ASI) (Watkins & Hattie, 1985), and later Biggs (1987a) in the form of the Study Processes Questionnaire (SPQ)

Summary

Introduction

Maintaining high academic standards in today’s larger and more diversified university classes presents majorHow to cite this paper: Lake, W., & Boyd, W. (2015). Fixed characteristics are still considered to be an important influence forming part of an interactive complex system (Jiao, 2005); both teacher and student are, responsible for producing positive learning outcomes This poses an important question as to whether the university experience is primarily responsible for pushing some students towards a superficial surface type learning approach or whether a student’s age or motivational disposition are more important factors. Many of these issues in higher education research have been studied since the early 1970s, in different research traditions, including, for example, the study of “learning styles” and “learning approaches”. Some terminology between these lines of study (“learning styles” and “learning approaches”) appears to be used somewhat interchangeable, the study reported here focuses on what is frequently referred to as Student Approaches to Learning

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion