نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 کارشناسی ارشد روان‌شناسی عمومی، دانشکده روان‌شناسی و علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه شهیدبهشتی، تهران، ایران.

2 عضو هیئت‌علمی، گروه روان‌شناسی، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روان‌شناسی، دانشگاه شهیدبهشتی، تهران، ایران.

3 عضو هیئت‌علمی، دانشکده علوم پایه، گروه ریاضی، دانشگاه ایلام، ایلام، ایران.

4 عضو هیئت‌علمی، دانشگاه ایلام، دانشکده علوم انسانی، گروه روان‌شناسی، دانشگاه ایلام، ایلام، ایران.

چکیده

هدف پژوهش حاضر بررسی رویکردهای مطالعة عمقی، سطحی و راهبردی دانشجویان و رابطة این رویکردها با پیشرفت تحصیلی و برداشت از مفهوم یادگیری بود. جامعة آماری پژوهش همة 5800 دانشجو دانشگاه ایلام بودند که با بهره‌مندی از روش نمونه‌گیری تصادفی طبقه‌ای و فرمول حجم نمونهکوکران، 534 نفر از دانشجویان دانشکده‌های علوم انسانی، علوم پایه، فنی مهندسی و کشاورزی دانشگاه ایلام (310 دختر و 224 پسر) به‌عنوان گروه نمونه انتخاب شدند. آزمودنی‌ها به پرسشنامة مهارت‌های مطالعه و یادگیری دانشجویان (انتویستل، 1997) که قسمت اول آن مفهوم یادگیری را نیز می‌سنجد و چک‌لیست اطلاعات فردی و پیشرفت تحصیلی پاسخ دادند. داده‌های با استفاده از جدول توافقی، ضریب کای- مربع پیرسون، گاما، همبستگی اسپیرمن و همبستگی پیرسون و با کمک نرم‌افزار SPSS16 تحلیل شدند. نتایج به دست آمده نشان داد که بین رویکردهای مطالعة عمقی (0001/0>p، 22/0=r) و راهبردی (005/0>p، 18/0=r) با پیشرفت تحصیلی، ارتباط مستقیم و بین رویکرد سطحی (05/0>p، 11/0-=r) و پیشرفت تحصیلی ارتباط معکوس وجود دارد. همچنین یافته‌ها نشان می‌دهند که بین برداشت دانشجویان از مفاهیم یادگیری و رویکردهای مطالعه (05/0>p) ارتباط معناداری وجود دارد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Relationship between Study Approaches with Academic Achievement and Student’s Conception of Learning

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mahnaz Akbari 1
  • Jalil Fathabadi 2
  • Isaac Almasi 3
  • Jahanshah Mohammadzadeh 4

1 psychology, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.

2 Department of psychology, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.

3 Department of psychology, Ilam University, Ilam, Iran.

4 Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Basic Sciences, Ilam University, Ilam, Iran.

چکیده [English]

The purpose of this study was to investigate the students' deep, surface and strategic learning approaches relationship with academic achievement and student’s perception of learning. The statistical population of this study was 5800 students of Ilam University that by using tht categorical random sampling method and the Cochran sample size formula, 534 students from the faculties of humanities, sciences, engineering and agriculture at Ilam University (310 girls and 224 boys) were selected as sample group. The subjects responded to the Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students “ASSIST” (Entwistle, 1997) that the first section af this inventory assess student’s concepts of learning and the individual information checklist and academic achievement checklist. Data were analyzed using the crosstabs, contingency coefficient, Pearson Chi-square coefficient Pearson and Spearman correlation and using SPSS22 software. The results of the study showed positive correlation between strategic (p <0.005, r = 0.18) deep approaches (p <0.0001, r = 0.22) and academic achievement, negative correlation between surface approach (05 / 0> p, 11 / 0- = r) and academic achievement. Also there was significant relationship between learning concepts and study approaches (p <0.05).

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Study approaches
  • Surface approaches
  • Deep approaches
  • Strategy approaches
  • Academic Achievement
  • Conception of learning

Abbaszadeh A, Borhani F, Sabzevari S, Eftekhari Z. (2013). The Assessment Methods and its Relationship to Learning Approaches of Nursing Students in Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Iran. Strides Dev Med Educ. Vol 10, No 2. pp 260-270. [persian].

Altun, H. (2019). Investigation of High School Students’ Geometry Course Achievement According to Their Learning Styles. Higher Education. Vol 9, No 1. pp 1-8

Baird, J. A., Caro, D. H., & Hopfenbeck, T. N. (2016). Student perceptions of predictability of examination requirements and relationship with outcomes in high-stakes tests in Ireland. Irish Educational Studies. Vol 16, No 22. pp 1-19.

Bnsaksen, T.,Brown, T., Lem, H B., Fong, Kenneth (2017). Approachs to studying predict academic performance in undergrauduate occupational therapy studend:A cross –cultural study.http: org /10.1186/s 12909-017-0914-3

Bonsaksen, T., Brown, T., Lim, H. B., & Fong, K. (2017). Approaches to studying predict academic performance in undergraduate occupational therapy students: A cross-cultural study. BMC medical education, Vol 17, No 1. pp 76.

Bourbonnais, FF. Langford, S. Giannantonio, L. (2008). Development of a clinical assessment tool for baccalaureate nursing students. Nurse Education in Practice. Vol 8. No 1. pp 62-71.

Cheema, J., & Kitsantas, A. (2016). Predicting high school student use of learning strategies: the role of preferred learning styles and classroom climate. Educational Psychology, Vol 36, N 5. pp 845-862.

Dunn, R. (1984). Learning style: State of the science. Theory into practice, Vol 23. No 1. pp 10-19.

Entwistle, N. J. (1997). The approaches and study skills inventory for students (ASSIST). Edinburgh: Centre for Research on Learning and Instruction, University of Edinburgh.

Entwistle, N., Tait, H. & McCune, V. (2000). Patterns of response to an approaches to studying inventory across contrasting groups and contexts. European Journal of Psychology of Education. Vol 15. No 1. pp 33– 48.

 

 

 

 

Everaert, P., Opdecam, E., & Maussen, S. (2017). The relationship between motivation, learning approaches, academic performance and time spent. Accounting Education. Vol 26. No 1. pp 78-107.

Fathabadi, J & Seyf, AA. (2008). Investigating the effect of different assessment methods on learning approaches and preparation strategies for the examination on students with high and low academic achievement. Journal of Educational Sciences and Psychology, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz. Vol 14, No 4. pp 21-46. [persian].

Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2005). Understanding student differences. Journal of engineering education. Vol 94, No 1. pp 57-72.

Honig, B., & Hopp, C. (2019). Learning orientations and learning dynamics: Understanding heterogeneous approaches and comparative success in nascent entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Research. Vol 94, No 1. pp 28-41.

İlçin, N., Tomruk, M., Yeşilyaprak, S. S., Karadibak, D., & Savcı, S. (2018). The relationship between learning styles and academic performance in TURKISH physiotherapy students. BMC medical education. Vol 18, No 1, pp 291.

Mattick, K., Dennis, I., & Bligh, J. (2004). Approaches to learning and studying in medical students: validation of a revised inventory and its relation to student characteristics and performance. Medical education. Vol 38. No 5. pp 535-543.

Richardson, J. T. (2011). Approaches to studying, conceptions of learning and learning styles in higher education. Learning and Individual differences. Vol 21. No 3. pp 288-293.

Shipman D, Roa M, Hooten J, Wang ZJ. (2012). Using the analytic rubric as an evaluation tool in nursing education: The positive and the negative. Nurse Education Today. Vol 32. No 3. Pp 246-9.

Watkins Ch, Carnell E, Lodge C. (2007). Effective learning in Classrooms. London: SAGE publishing Company.

Wilson, J. D. (2018). Student learning in higher education. Routledge.

Zamani, E., Rayat, Z., Saeidian, N. (2018). The relationship Between learning styles and preferred teaching methods of high school students in the town of meybod in educational year 90-91. Research in Curriculum Planning. Vol 15, No 56. pp 174-185. [persian].

Zeegers, P. (2001). Approaches to learning in science: A longitudinal study. British Journal of Educational Psychology. Vol 71, No 1. pp 115-132.