Abstract
Purpose – In recent times, quality of graduates and their performance has been questioned. Students’ performance is an indicator of the kind of approach (deep or surface) that is taken. This study investigates the kind of undergraduates take in their learning processes. Methodology – This quantitative survey used Revised Two-Factor Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F). Sixty-three students participated in the study. Findings – Results showed no significant difference between the types of approach by gender, nationality, year of study, and major. However, the rank ordering of the mean value indicated that almost all the students who participated in the study did not possess a deep approach to learning. The Pearson’s r analysis revealed a weak negative statistical correlation between the deep and surface approaches to learning and weak positive statistical correlation between surface strategy and deep approach. However, a significant relationship between deep strategy and deep approach (r = .903**, p < .01) was found. Significance – The lack of deep approach to learning among students can be attributed to factors such as the conditions of learning, professional capacity of teachers, and lack of instructional rigor in the program or coursework. It is imperative that emphasis is placed on using deep approaches to learning in the university courses so that deep learning experiences are created for students.
Highlights
Growing concern has been shown over the quality of graduates produced by public and private Higher Education Institutions in Malaysia
The results showed students were not strongly aligned with either deep or surface approaches to learning
The deep approach latent variable was indicated by two observed variables (Deep Motive and Deep Strategy sub-scales), while the surface approach latent variable was indicated by another two observed variables (Surface Motive and Surface Strategy subscales)
Summary
A tracer study by the Ministry of Human Resources Malaysia conducted in 2006 showed that 30.7% of graduates remained unemployed six months after their graduation while 5.6% were still awaiting job placement (Tan, 2007). This situation has been attributed to graduates’ lack of generic skills, inability to communicate effectively, inability to participate in problem-solving activities, disinterest in scouting for new ideas, and narrow view of the issues at hand, and resorting to quick fixes. This leads to the question of curriculum, teaching methodology, course structure and content, learning environment, quality of teaching and teachers, and student context and disposition towards learning
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
