فصلنامه علمی پژوهش در یادگیری آموزشگاهی و مجازی

با همکاری مشترک دانشگاه پیام نور و انجمن روانشناسی تربیتی ایران

شماره جاری

بر اساس شماره‌های نشریه

بر اساس نویسندگان

بر اساس موضوعات

نمایه نویسندگان

نمایه کلیدواژه ها

درباره نشریه

اهداف و چشم انداز

اعضای هیات تحریریه

اصول اخلاقی انتشار مقاله

بانک ها و نمایه نامه ها

پرسش‌های متداول

فرایند پذیرش مقالات

اطلاعات آماری نشریه

بررسی رابطه رویکردهای یادگیری با عملکرد تحصیلی کیفی و کمی دانشجویان

نوع مقاله : پژوهشی

نویسندگان

دانشگاه یزد

چکیده

 

هدف پژوهش حاضر بررسی رابطه‌ رویکردهای یادگیری دانشجویان (شامل سه رویکرد سطحی، عمیق و استراتژیک) با عملکرد تحصیلی کیفی (شامل ابعاد خودکارآمدی، برنامه‌ریزی، تأثیرات هیجانی، فقدان کنترل پیامد و انگیزش) و کمی بود. شرکت‌کنندگان پژوهش 414 دانشجوی دوره‌ کارشناسی (256 دختر و 158 پسر) دانشگاه یزد بودند که به روش تصادفی خوشه‌ای انتخاب شدند. برای سنجش رویکردهای یادگیری از پرسش‌نامه‌ رویکردهای یادگیری برای دانشجویان (ASSIST) و برای سنجش عملکرد تحصیلی کیفی از پرسش‌نامه‌ عملکرد تحصیلی کیفی (EPT) استفاده شد. سنجش پایایی به روش آلفای کرونباخ، پایایی مطلوبی را برای مقیاس‌ها گزارش کرد. عملکرد تحصیلی کمی بر اساس معدل ترم و معدل کل دانشجویان بررسی شد. نتایج تحلیل رگرسیون در حوزه‌ عملکرد تحصیلی کیفی نشان داد که رویکرد عمیق و استراتژیک پیش‌بینی‌کننده مثبت و رویکرد سطحی پیش‌بینی‌کننده منفی نمره کل عملکرد کیفی تحصیلی است. به‌علاوه، از میان مؤلفه‌های عملکرد کیفی، خودکارآمدی و انگیزش توسط رویکرد عمیق به صورت مثبت پیش‌بینی می‌شوند و رویکردهای استراتژیک و سطحی نیز پیش‌بینی‌کننده هر پنج مؤلفه هستند. نتیجه‌ دیگر این‌که رویکرد عمیق پیش‌بینی‌کننده‌ عملکرد تحصیلی کمی نمی‌باشد، لکن رویکرد استراتژیک به صورت مثبت و رویکرد سطحی به صورت منفی معدل ترم و کل دانشجویان را تبیین می‌کنند. نتایج پژوهش حاضر ضرورت بازشناسی نقش رویکردهای یادگیری را در کیفیت عملکرد تحصیلی دانشجویان باز می‌نماید.



 

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

A study of the relationships between learning approaches with student’s qualitative & quantitative academic performance

نویسندگان [English]

  • ahmad zandavanian naeeni
  • mehdi rahimi
  • forogh poortaheri

چکیده [English]

 
The aim of present study was to investigate the relationship between learning approaches (deep, surface and strategic approaches) with qualitative academic performance (self-efficacy, planning, motivation, emotional effects and lack of output control) and quantitative academic performance. The participants were 414 bachelor students of Yazd University (256 girls and 158 boys) whom were selected randomly. The instruments of study were Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students and Educational Performance Test. Cronbach alpha coefficients reported acceptable reliability of the measures. The average of total score of students was used to examine the quantitative academic performance. In data analysis, multiple regression analysis was used to study the relationship between variables. The result of regression analysis showed that deep and strategic learning approaches positively and surface approach negatively predicts total score of qualitative performance. Furthermore, all five components were predicted significantly by surface and strategic approaches to learning. Self-efficacy and motivation were predicted by deep approaches too. Another result is that deep approaches were not predictor of quantitative academic performance, but strategic approach in a positive way and surface approach in a negative way predicted the term average and total average of students. The results of this study demonstrate the importance of approaches to learning in quality of students' academic performance.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Learning Approaches
  • qualitative academic performance
  • quantitative academic performance
مراجع
Bakhtiarvand, F; Ahmadian, S; Delrooz, K., & Farahani, H. A. (2011). The Moderating Effect of Achievement motivation on relationship of learning approaches and academic achievement. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 28, 486 – 488.
Baniasadi, A., Pourshafei, H. (2013). The role of educational motivation, self-efficacy, and study approaches in mathematics achievement. Quarterly Journal of New Thoughts on Education, 8,4, 81-102.
Biggs, J. B. (1994). Student Learning Research and Theory - where do we currently stand?. Reproduced with permission from Gibbs, G. (ed.) Improving Student Learning – Theory and  Practice. Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff Development.
Biggs, J. B. (1987). Student Approaches to Learning and Studying. Research Monograph. Australian Council for Educational Research Melbourne.
Burton, L. J., & Nelson, L. J. (2006). The relationships between personality, approaches to learning and academic success in first-year psychology distance education students. In: 29th HERDSA Annual Conference: Critical Visions: Thinking, Learning and Researching in Higher Education (HERDSA), Perth, Australia.
Cano, F. (2005). Epistemological belief and approaches to learning: Their change through secondary school and their influence on academic performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology ,75,203-221
Carrick, J. A. (2010). The effect of classroom and clinical learning approaches on academic achievement in associate aegree nursing students. A Dissertation for the Degree of ph.D. The School of Graduate Studies and Research Department of Professional Studies in Education, Indiana University of Pennsylvania.
Chen, T.C., Hu, M.H. (2013). Influence of course design on learning approaches and academic performance in physical therapy students. Social and Behavioral Sciences. 93, 97 – 101.
Clinton,V. (2014). The Relationship between Students’ Preferred Approaches to Learning and Behaviors during Learning: An Examination of the Process Stage of the 3P Model. Instructional Science, 42(5), 817-837.
Diehm, R.A., & Lupton. M.Y. (2012). Approaches to learning information literacy: A phenomenographic study. Journal of Academic Librarianship,1-9. (dio:10.1016/ j.acalib. 2012. 05. 003).
Dortaj, F. (2002). An Investigation of the Impact of resultant and prossesive mental simulation on students' academic performance,Develop of educational performance test. Dissertation, Tehran: Allameh Tabatabai University.
Entwistle, N. J. (2000). Promoting deep learning through teaching and assessment: Conceptual frameworks and educational contexts. Paper presented at the TLRP Conference, Leicester.
Entwistle, N. J., & McCune, V. (2004) the conceptual bases of study strategy inventories in higher education. Educational Psychology Review, 16,4, 325-346.
Entwistle, N. J., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding Student Learning. London: Croom Helm.
Entwistle. N. J., McCune, V,& Tait, H. (2006).  Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students: Report of the development and use of the inventory. University of Edinburg.
Farooq , M. S., Chaudhry, A. H., Shafiq, M., & Berhanu, G. (2011). Factors affecting students’ quality of academic performance: a case of secondaryschool level. Journal of Quality and Technology Management, 7, 11, 1 - 14.
Gholtash,A., Oujinezhad, A.,&Barzegar, M. (2010). An Investigation of the Impact of Meta Cognitive Training on the Educational Performance and Creativity of the Fifth- Grade Primary School Students. Quarterly Journal of Educational Psychology Islamic Azad University Tonekabon Branch, 1,4, 119-135.
Gurlen, E; Turan, S; & enemoğlu, N. (2013). The relationship between learning approaches of prospective teachers and their academic achievement. Educational Research and Review, 8, 5, 171-178.
Habel, C; Habel, C. (2010). Approaches to learning and student self-efficacy in project-based Marketing education. Research and Development in Higher Education, 33,321-333.
Harputlu, L. (2011). Approaches to learning and academic performance of Turkish university Students. Mevlana International Journal of Education (MIJE), 1, 2, 35-43.
Hejazi,L., Lavasani, M., &Babaei, A. ( 2011). The Relationship between Perceptions of Classroom Goal Structure, Thinking Styles, Approaches to Learning and Academic Achievement in Students. Research in Curriculum Planning, 8, 30, 28-38.
Karimi, M., Farahbahksh, K. (2012). Relationship between affective self-regulation and study skills with ducational performance of students of Isfahan University of Medical Science. IJME, Special issue for educational development and health promotion, 11, 9, 1149-1161.
Lawson,R,J. (2012). The Effect of viva assessment on students’ approaches to learning and motivation. International Review of Social Sciences and Humanities, 2, 2,120-132.
Marton,F. & Saljo, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning: 1. Outcome and  process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46,4-11.
Pajare, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66, 543-578.
Pham, L. B. & Taylor,S,E. (1999). From Thought to Action: Effects of Process- Versus Outcome-Based Mental Simulations on Performance. Society for Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 2,250-260.
Richardson, M., Abraham, C., & Bond, R. (2012). Psychological correlates of university students’ academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138(2), 353-387.
Rose, N. S., & Craik, F. I. (2012). A processing approach to the working memory /longterm memory distinction: Evidence from the levels-of-processing span task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38, 4, 1019.
Saljo, R. (1979). Learning in the Learner's Perspective. I. Some Common-Sense Conceptions (Report 35:76): The institute of education, University of Gothenburg, Sweden.
Seif, D., & khayyer, M. (2007). The relationship between motivation belifes and learning approaches among students. Education Journal of Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, 3, 1, 2, 57-82.
Shaari, R; Mahmud, N, Abdolwahab, S. R; Abdul Rahim, K; Rajab, A; & Panatik,S .A. (2012).“Deep” as a learning approaches in inspiring creative minds among postgraduate students Research University. Procedia social and behavioral sciences, 40, 152-156.
فصلنامه علمی پژوهش در یادگیری آموزشگاهی و مجازی
دوره 1، شماره 4
اردیبهشت 1393
صفحه 29-41
فایل ها
هم رسانی
ارجاع به این مقاله
آمار