- -

Study Approaches of Life Science Students Using the Revised Two-Factor Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F)

RiuNet: Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad Politécnica de Valencia

Compartir/Enviar a

Citas

Estadísticas

  • Estadisticas de Uso

Study Approaches of Life Science Students Using the Revised Two-Factor Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F)

Mostrar el registro completo del ítem

Leiva-Brondo, M.; Cebolla Cornejo, J.; Peiró Barber, RM.; Andrés-Colás, N.; Esteras Gómez, C.; Ferriol Molina, M.; Merle Farinós, HB.... (2020). Study Approaches of Life Science Students Using the Revised Two-Factor Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F). Education Sciences. 10(7):1-18. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10070173

Por favor, use este identificador para citar o enlazar este ítem: http://hdl.handle.net/10251/167875

Ficheros en el ítem

Thumbnail
Nombre: Leva-Brondo;Cebol ...
Tamaño: 1.118Mb
Formato: PDF
Descripción: Versión editorial
Abrir/Preview

Metadatos del ítem

Título: Study Approaches of Life Science Students Using the Revised Two-Factor Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F)
Autor: Leiva-Brondo, Miguel Cebolla Cornejo, Jaime Peiró Barber, Rosa Mª Andrés-Colás, Nuria Esteras Gómez, Cristina Ferriol Molina, María Merle Farinós, Hugo Basilio Díez Niclós, Mª José Teresa De Jesús Pérez De Castro, Ana María
Entidad UPV: Universitat Politècnica de València. Departamento de Biotecnología - Departament de Biotecnologia
Universitat Politècnica de València. Departamento de Ecosistemas Agroforestales - Departament d'Ecosistemes Agroforestals
Fecha difusión:
Resumen:
[EN] Students' approaches to learning can vary between students of different ages, genders, years, degrees, or cultural contexts. The aim of this study was to assess the approaches to learning of different students of life ...[+]
Palabras clave: Deep learning , Biotechnology , Student learning approach
Derechos de uso: Reconocimiento (by)
Fuente:
Education Sciences. (eissn: 2227-7102 )
DOI: 10.3390/educsci10070173
Editorial:
MDPI AG
Versión del editor: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10070173
Código del Proyecto:
info:eu-repo/grantAgreement/UPV//PIME%2F19-20%2F168/
info:eu-repo/grantAgreement/UPV//PIME%2F2017%2FA%2F016%2FA/
Agradecimientos:
This research was partially funded by innovation educative projects (PIME/2017/A/016/A and PIME/19-20/168) by Vice-Rectorate for Studies, Quality and Accreditation of Universitat Politecnica de Valencia (UPV, Valencia, Spain).[+]
Tipo: Artículo

References

Sinatra, G. M., Heddy, B. C., & Lombardi, D. (2015). The Challenges of Defining and Measuring Student Engagement in Science. Educational Psychologist, 50(1), 1-13. doi:10.1080/00461520.2014.1002924

Jeong, J. S., González-Gómez, D., Conde-Núñez, M. C., & Gallego-Picó, A. (2019). EXAMINATION OF STUDENTS’ ENGAGEMENT WITH R-SPQ-2F OF LEARNING APPROACH IN FLIPPED SUSTAINABLE SCIENCE COURSE. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 18(6), 880-891. doi:10.33225/jbse/19.18.880

Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School Engagement: Potential of the Concept, State of the Evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109. doi:10.3102/00346543074001059 [+]
Sinatra, G. M., Heddy, B. C., & Lombardi, D. (2015). The Challenges of Defining and Measuring Student Engagement in Science. Educational Psychologist, 50(1), 1-13. doi:10.1080/00461520.2014.1002924

Jeong, J. S., González-Gómez, D., Conde-Núñez, M. C., & Gallego-Picó, A. (2019). EXAMINATION OF STUDENTS’ ENGAGEMENT WITH R-SPQ-2F OF LEARNING APPROACH IN FLIPPED SUSTAINABLE SCIENCE COURSE. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 18(6), 880-891. doi:10.33225/jbse/19.18.880

Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School Engagement: Potential of the Concept, State of the Evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109. doi:10.3102/00346543074001059

Reeve, J. (2013). How students create motivationally supportive learning environments for themselves: The concept of agentic engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 579-595. doi:10.1037/a0032690

Montenegro, A. (2017). Understanding the Concept of Agentic Engagement. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 19(1), 117. doi:10.14483/calj.v19n1.10472

QS Enrolment Solutions https://www.internationalstudentsurvey.com/international-student-survey-2017/

Biggs, J., Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. P. (2001). The revised two-factor Study Process Questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(1), 133-149. doi:10.1348/000709901158433

MARTON, F., & SÄLJÖ, R. (1976). ON QUALITATIVE DIFFERENCES IN LEARNING: I-OUTCOME AND PROCESS*. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46(1), 4-11. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1976.tb02980.x

MARTON, F., & SÄALJÖ, R. (1976). ON QUALITATIVE DIFFERENCES IN LEARNING-II OUTCOME AS A FUNCTION OF THE LEARNER’S CONCEPTION OF THE TASK. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46(2), 115-127. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1976.tb02304.x

Grabinger, R. S., & Dunlap, J. C. (2011). Rich environments for active learning: a definition. Research in Learning Technology, 3(2). doi:10.3402/rlt.v3i2.9606

Zimmerman, B. J. (1986). Becoming a self-regulated learner: Which are the key subprocesses? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11(4), 307-313. doi:10.1016/0361-476x(86)90027-5

BIGGS, J. B. (1978). INDIVIDUAL AND GROUP DIFFERENCES IN STUDY PROCESSES. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 48(3), 266-279. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1978.tb03013.x

Schmeck, R. R., Ribich, F., & Ramanaiah, N. (1977). Development of a Self-Report Inventory for Assessing Individual Differences in Learning Processes. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1(3), 413-431. doi:10.1177/014662167700100310

Booth, P., Luckett, P., & Mladenovic, R. (1999). The quality of learning in accounting education: the impact of approaches to learning on academic performance. Accounting Education, 8(4), 277-300. doi:10.1080/096392899330801

Eley, M. G. (1992). Differential adoption of study approaches within individual students. Higher Education, 23(3), 231-254. doi:10.1007/bf00145015

Abhayawansa, S., & Fonseca, L. (2010). Conceptions of Learning and Approaches to Learning—A Phenomenographic Study of a Group of Overseas Accounting Students from Sri Lanka. Accounting Education, 19(5), 527-550. doi:10.1080/09639284.2010.502651

Zhang, L.-F. (2000). University Students’ Learning Approaches in Three Cultures: An Investigation of Biggs’s 3P Model. The Journal of Psychology, 134(1), 37-55. doi:10.1080/00223980009600847

Richardson, J. T. E. (1994). Cultural specificity of approaches to studying in higher education: A literature survey. Higher Education, 27(4), 449-468. doi:10.1007/bf01384904

Hall *, M., Ramsay, A., & Raven, J. (2004). Changing the learning environment to promote deep learning approaches in first-year accounting students. Accounting Education, 13(4), 489-505. doi:10.1080/0963928042000306837

Duff *, A. (2004). Understanding academic performance and progression of first-year accounting and business economics undergraduates: the role of approaches to learning and prior academic achievement. Accounting Education, 13(4), 409-430. doi:10.1080/0963928042000306800

Davidson, R. A. (2002). Relationship of study approach and exam performance. Journal of Accounting Education, 20(1), 29-44. doi:10.1016/s0748-5751(01)00025-2

Salamonson, Y., Weaver, R., Chang, S., Koch, J., Bhathal, R., Khoo, C., & Wilson, I. (2013). Learning approaches as predictors of academic performance in first year health and science students. Nurse Education Today, 33(7), 729-733. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2013.01.013

Entwistle, N., & Entwistle, D. (2003). Preparing for Examinations: The interplay of memorising and understanding, and the development of knowledge objects. Higher Education Research & Development, 22(1), 19-41. doi:10.1080/0729436032000056562

Frăsineanu, E. S. (2013). Approach to Learning Process: Superficial Learning and Deep Learning at Students. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 76, 346-350. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.04.125

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 analyses at item level. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 23(3), 355-372. doi:10.1007/bf03173004

Fryer, L. K., Ginns, P., Walker, R. A., & Nakao, K. (2011). The adaptation and validation of the CEQ and the R-SPQ-2F to the Japanese tertiary environment. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 549-563. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02045.x

Gurpinar, E., Kulac, E., Tetik, C., Akdogan, I., & Mamakli, S. (2013). Do learning approaches of medical students affect their satisfaction with problem-based learning? Advances in Physiology Education, 37(1), 85-88. doi:10.1152/advan.00119.2012

Parpala, A., Lindblom-Ylänne, S., Komulainen, E., Litmanen, T., & Hirsto, L. (2010). Students’ approaches to learning and their experiences of the teaching-learning environment in different disciplines. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(2), 269-282. doi:10.1348/000709909x476946

Gijbels, D., Van de Watering, G., Dochy, F., & Van den Bossche, P. (2005). The relationship between students’ approaches to learning and the assessment of learning outcomes. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 20(4), 327-341. doi:10.1007/bf03173560

Mogre, V., & Amalba, A. (2014). Assessing the reliability and validity of the Revised Two Factor Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ2F) in Ghanaian medical students. Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions, 11, 19. doi:10.3352/jeehp.2014.11.19

Mok, C. K. F., Dodd, B., & Whitehill, T. L. (2009). Speech-language pathology students’ approaches to learning in a problem-based learning curriculum. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 11(6), 472-481. doi:10.3109/17549500903003052

May, W., Chung, E.-K., Elliott, D., & Fisher, D. (2012). The relationship between medical students’ learning approaches and performance on a summative high-stakes clinical performance examination. Medical Teacher, 34(4), e236-e241. doi:10.3109/0142159x.2012.652995

Marton, F. (1981). Phenomenography ? Describing conceptions of the world around us. Instructional Science, 10(2), 177-200. doi:10.1007/bf00132516

Graham, N. C., Entwistle, N., & Ramsden, P. (1984). Understanding Student Learning. British Journal of Educational Studies, 32(3), 284. doi:10.2307/3121589

Wilson, K. L., Smart, R. M., & Watson, R. J. (1996). Gender differences in approaches to learning in first year psychology students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 66(1), 59-71. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1996.tb01176.x

Boyle, E. A., Duffy, T., & Dunleavy, K. (2003). Learning styles and academic outcome: The validity and utility of Vermunt’s Inventory of Learning Styles in a British higher education setting. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(2), 267-290. doi:10.1348/00070990360626976

Fox, R. A., McManus, I. C., & Winder, B. C. (2001). The shortened Study Process Questionnaire: An investigation of its structure and longitudinal stability using confirmatory factor analysis. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(4), 511-530. doi:10.1348/000709901158659

Zeegers, P. (2001). Approaches to learning in science: A longitudinal study. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(1), 115-132. doi:10.1348/000709901158424

Snelgrove, S., & Slater, J. (2003). Approaches to learning: psychometric testing of a study process questionnaire. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 43(5), 496-505. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02747.x

ROSSUM, E. J., & SCHENK, S. M. (1984). THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEARNING CONCEPTION, STUDY STRATEGY AND LEARNING OUTCOME. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 54(1), 73-83. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1984.tb00846.x

Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Waterhouse, F. (1999). Higher Education, 37(1), 57-70. doi:10.1023/a:1003548313194

Crawford, K., Gordon, S., Nicholas, J., & Prosser, M. (1998). Qualitatively different experiences of learning mathematics at university. Learning and Instruction, 8(5), 455-468. doi:10.1016/s0959-4752(98)00005-x

Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students (ASSIST) (Incorporating the Revised Approaches to Studying Inventory—RASI) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260291730_Approaches_and_Study_Skills_Inventory_for_Students_ASSIST_incorporating_the_Revised_Approaches_to_Studying_Inventory_-_RASI

Immekus, J. C., & Imbrie, P. K. (2009). A Test and Cross-Validation of the Revised Two-Factor Study Process Questionnaire Factor Structure Among Western University Students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70(3), 495-510. doi:10.1177/0013164409355685

Socha, A., & Sigler, E. A. (2014). Exploring and «reconciling» the factor structure for the Revised Two-factor Study Process Questionnaire. Learning and Individual Differences, 31, 43-50. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2013.12.010

Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Furnham, A., & Lewis, M. (2007). Personality and approaches to learning predict preference for different teaching methods. Learning and Individual Differences, 17(3), 241-250. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2006.12.001

Furnham, A., Monsen, J., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2009). Typical intellectual engagement, Big Five personality traits, approaches to learning and cognitive ability predictors of academic performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(4), 769-782. doi:10.1348/978185409x412147

Phan, H. P. (2017). Multiple regression analysis of epistemological beliefs, learning approaches, and self-regulated learning. Electronic Journal of Research in Education Psychology, 6(14). doi:10.25115/ejrep.v6i14.1262

Stes, A., De Maeyer, S., & Van Petegem, P. (2013). Examining the Cross-Cultural Sensitivity of the Revised Two-Factor Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F) and Validation of a Dutch Version. PLoS ONE, 8(1), e54099. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0054099

Baeten, M., Kyndt, E., Struyven, K., & Dochy, F. (2010). Using student-centred learning environments to stimulate deep approaches to learning: Factors encouraging or discouraging their effectiveness. Educational Research Review, 5(3), 243-260. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2010.06.001

Xie, Q., & Zhang, L. (2014). Demographic Factors, Personality, and Ability as Predictors of Learning Approaches. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 24(4), 569-577. doi:10.1007/s40299-014-0202-5

Severiens, S., & Dam, G. (1998). A multilevel meta-analysis of gender differences in learning orientations. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68(4), 595-608. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1998.tb01315.x

Rubin, M., Scevak, J., Southgate, E., Macqueen, S., Williams, P., & Douglas, H. (2018). Older women, deeper learning, and greater satisfaction at university: Age and gender predict university students’ learning approach and degree satisfaction. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 11(1), 82-96. doi:10.1037/dhe0000042

Gow, L., & Kember, D. (1990). Does higher education promote independent learning? Higher Education, 19(3), 307-322. doi:10.1007/bf00133895

Richardson, J. T. E., & King, E. (1998). Adult Students in Higher Education. The Journal of Higher Education, 69(1), 65-88. doi:10.1080/00221546.1998.11775125

Richardson, J. T. E. (2013). Approaches to studying across the adult life span: Evidence from distance education. Learning and Individual Differences, 26, 74-80. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2013.04.012

Harper, G., & Kember, D. (1986). Approaches to Study of Distance Education Students. British Journal of Educational Technology, 17(3), 212-222. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.1986.tb00510.x

Leung, D. Y. P., Ginns, P., & Kember, D. (2008). Examining the Cultural Specificity of Approaches To Learning in Universities in Hong Kong and Sydney. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39(3), 251-266. doi:10.1177/0022022107313905

Entwistle, N., & Tait, H. (1990). Approaches to learning, evaluations of teaching, and preferences for contrasting academic environments. Higher Education, 19(2), 169-194. doi:10.1007/bf00137106

Leung, S. F., Mok, E., & Wong, D. (2008). The impact of assessment methods on the learning of nursing students. Nurse Education Today, 28(6), 711-719. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2007.11.004

Shuell, T. J. (1986). Cognitive Conceptions of Learning. Review of Educational Research, 56(4), 411-436. doi:10.3102/00346543056004411

Biggs, J. (1999). What the Student Does: teaching for enhanced learning. Higher Education Research & Development, 18(1), 57-75. doi:10.1080/0729436990180105

Berger, J.-L., & Karabenick, S. A. (2011). Motivation and students’ use of learning strategies: Evidence of unidirectional effects in mathematics classrooms. Learning and Instruction, 21(3), 416-428. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.06.002

Zakariya. (2019). Study Approaches in Higher Education Mathematics: Investigating the Statistical Behaviour of an Instrument Translated into Norwegian. Education Sciences, 9(3), 191. doi:10.3390/educsci9030191

Munshi, F., Al-Rukban, M., & Al-Hoqail, I. (2012). Reliability and validity of an Arabic version of the revised two-factor study process questionnaire R-SPQ-2F. Journal of Family and Community Medicine, 19(1), 33. doi:10.4103/2230-8229.94010

Shaik, S. A., Almarzuqi, A., Almogheer, R., Alharbi, O., Jalal, A., & Alorainy, M. (2017). Assessing Saudi medical students learning approach using the revised two-factor study process questionnaire. International Journal of Medical Education, 8, 292-296. doi:10.5116/ijme.5974.7a06

Watkins, D. (1986). The Approaches to Learning of Australian Tertiary Students: A Replication. Higher Education Research & Development, 5(2), 185-190. doi:10.1080/0729436860050207

Jeong, J. S., González-Gómez, D., & Cañada-Cañada, F. (2019). How does a flipped classroom course affect the affective domain toward science course? Interactive Learning Environments, 29(5), 707-719. doi:10.1080/10494820.2019.1636079

Wolf, E. J., Harrington, K. M., Clark, S. L., & Miller, M. W. (2013). Sample Size Requirements for Structural Equation Models. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73(6), 913-934. doi:10.1177/0013164413495237

Moulaye M’Hamed Taher, A., Chen, J., & Yao, W. (2011). Key predictors of creative MBA students’ performance. Journal of Technology Management in China, 6(1), 43-68. doi:10.1108/17468771111105659

Dong, N., Bai, M., Zhang, H., & Zhang, J. (2019). Approaches to learning IFRS by Chinese accounting students. Journal of Accounting Education, 48, 1-11. doi:10.1016/j.jaccedu.2019.04.002

Selectividad 2018: Estas Son las Carreras Con las Notas de Corte Más Altas https://www.abc.es/sociedad/abci-selectividad-2018-estas-diez-carreras-notas-corte-mas-altas-201806041503_noticia.html

Universitat Politècnica de València. Notas de Corte Curso 2018-19 http://www.upv.es/pls/oalu/sic_futuroalumno.notascorte?p_idioma=c

Notas de Corte 2018 https://elpais.com/especiales/universidades/titulacion/notas/biotecnologia/36

Fryer, L. K., & Vermunt, J. D. (2017). Regulating approaches to learning: Testing learning strategy convergences across a year at university. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 21-41. doi:10.1111/bjep.12169

Mujeres Matriculadas y Egresadas en Enseñanza de Grado y de Primer y segundo Ciclo por Rama de Enseñanza https://www.ine.es/jaxiT3/Datos.htm?t=12722

Vermunt, J. D. (2005). Relations between student learning patterns and personal and contextual factors and academic performance. Higher Education, 49(3), 205-234. doi:10.1007/s10734-004-6664-2

Chan, Y.-K., & Kan, A. C. N. (2017). The Interplay between Gender, Learning Approaches and Academic Performance in Chinese Sub-Degree and Degree Students. Global Journal of Educational Studies, 3(1), 10. doi:10.5296/gjes.v3i1.10781

Scouller, K. (1998). Higher Education, 35(4), 453-472. doi:10.1023/a:1003196224280

Bobe, B. J., & Cooper, B. J. (2017). The effect of language proficiency on approaches to learning and satisfaction of undergraduate accounting students. Accounting Education, 28(2), 149-171. doi:10.1080/09639284.2017.1396481

Hundleby, J. D., & Nunnally, J. (1968). Psychometric Theory. American Educational Research Journal, 5(3), 431. doi:10.2307/1161962

Vergara-Hernández, C., Simancas-Pallares, M., & Carbonell-Muñoz, Z. (2019). Psychometric properties of the revised two-factor study process questionnaire r-spq-2f - spanish version. Duazary, 16(2), 205-218. doi:10.21676/2389783x.2744

Vaughan, B. (2018). A Rasch analysis of the Revised Study Process Questionnaire in an Australian osteopathy student cohort. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 56, 144-153. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2017.12.003

Martyn, J., Terwijn, R., Kek, M. Y. C. A., & Huijser, H. (2014). Exploring the relationships between teaching, approaches to learning and critical thinking in a problem-based learning foundation nursing course. Nurse Education Today, 34(5), 829-835. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2013.04.023

López-Aguado, M., & Gutiérrez-Provecho, L. (2018). Checking the underlying structure of R-SPQ-2F using covariance structure analysis / Comprobación de la estructura subyacente del R-SPQ-2F mediante análisis de estructura de covarianza. Cultura y Educación, 30(1), 105-141. doi:10.1080/11356405.2017.1416787

Merino Soto, C., & Kumar Pradhan, R. (2013). VALIDACIÓN ESTRUCTURAL DEL R-SPQ-2F: UN ANÁLISIS FACTORIAL CONFIRMATORIO. Revista Digital de Investigación en Docencia Universitaria, (1), 111. doi:10.19083/ridu.7.190

[-]

recommendations

 

Este ítem aparece en la(s) siguiente(s) colección(ones)

Mostrar el registro completo del ítem