APPROACHES TO LEARNING OF BEGINNING TEACHER EDUCATION STUDENTS AARE CONFERENCE SYDNEY 1990 Darcy Anderson and Richard Walker University of Sydney Institute of Education Introduction Universities in the 1990's are expected to meet the needs of an increasingly diverse student population, including larger proportions of less academically oriented students than in the past. This is a consequence of several factors, including recent amalgamations with CAE's, higher educational expectations for young people generally and shortages of teachers in some discipline areas. The resulting difficulties of some students in meeting academic requirements following enrolment in some university courses are already evident and are likely to continue. Some students approach learning in a piece meal fashion and appear unable to fit new material into a larger, personalised framework of understanding. Others have genuine difficulty in writing essays. Many of these students write descriptively, rather than reflectively and appear to lack a sense of audience in their writing. These learning difficulties and related ones are often associated with under development in the area of metacognition. The development of better metacognitive skills in some of our beginning university students is likely to alleviate some of these difficulties. At the most general level, these skills involve learning about learning and developing an awareness and control of one's thinking processes. There is some evidence that the development of improved metacognitive skills is associated with improved academic performance at tertiary level (Biggs, 1987, p.113) and at senior secondary school level (Edwards, 1986). Theoretical Background Biggs (1987, 1984 and 1982) has described research with university and CAE students in which different approaches to learning have been identified with associated differences in self rated academic performance. In particular in a recent monograph Biggs (1987), has reviewed research relating to three different approaches to learning, called Surface, Deep and Achievement Approaches. These approaches consist of motive-strategy combinations with reflect different student expectations in studying and learning and result in different levels of quality of learning. Biggs (1987), defines a surface motive (SM) as an instrumental one in which the main purpose is to meet minimum requirements for assessment. The associated strategy (SS) is a reproductive one in which the focus is on recalling the essential elements of content through rote learning. The superficial approach to learning resulting from this motive-strategy combination is termed a Surface Approach (SA). A deep motive (DM) by contrast is intrinsic, and meaning oriented. The associated strategy (DS) involves wide reading and an attempt to integrate new material into previous knowledge. The approach to learning resulting from this motive-strategy combination is the deep approach. (DA) An achieving motive (AM) is one in which high grades are the goal regardless of the interest level of the material to be learned. The related strategy amounts to being well organised, and systematic in the application of conventional study skills. An achieving approach (AA) is the result of this combination. (Biggs, 1987, chapter 2). While surface and deep strategies refer to ways in which students engage the actual task of learning, achieving strategies refer to the way in which students organise the contexts in which the learning task is carried out. Hence it is possible to combine either surface or deep approaches with an achieving one. Biggs refers to a combination of 2 approaches termed the deep achieving approach (DAA). Students using a combination of deep and achieving approaches are likely to be intrinsically motivated, to have positive feelings about the learning task and to develop an understanding of the structure of the material to be learned through wide reading and the integration of the material into a meaningful personalised framework. In addition the organised approach to learning associated with this is likely to lead to good performance in formal assessments as well as feelings of satisfaction with learning. While students may endorse a variety of motive strategy combinations, and a surface approach may be advantageous to students in some circumstances, deep approaches and deep achieving approaches in particular are likely to be most congruent with the commonly accepted goals of university education. These approaches to learning are associated with the development of metacognitive skills. The present study was an exploratory research project aimed at examining the approaches to learning of groups of beginning teacher education students enrolled in the B.Ed. (Sec.) program. This is to be followed by a more substantial investigation in 1991, in which an intervention program aimed at developing the metacognitive skills of the students is to be implemented. Aims In brief, the aims of this preliminary study were to assess the approaches to learning of first year students enrolled in Industrial Arts, Mathematics and Humanities teacher education programs, to examine any differences between the groups and to examine any changes in approaches that occurred over the first academic year. Methodology The instrument used for assessing approaches to learning was the study process questionnaire (SPQ) developed by Biggs (1987), whose concepts and research were the starting point for the current investigation. As indicated earlier, this instrument provides scores for motives and strategies as well as a combined score for approach to learning. This instrument was developed for use with tertiary students. The SPQ was first administered to all incoming B.Ed. (Sec.) students early in semester I, March 1990. (N=201). Mean and standard deviation scores were obtained for the group as a whole and for the particular subject groupings, (e.g. Mathematics, Humanities, Industrial Arts) on the three scales of Motives, Strategies and Approach to enable group comparisons to be made. To allay any concerns re privacy the subjects were asked to identify themselves on the questionnaire by a pseudonym. In order that the papers could be matched following the second administration, the subjects were asked to register as family name, their mother's unmarried or maiden name and their father's first name. The second administration of the SPQ occurred late in second semester, (November 1990). The subjects were again reminded to register the same name used at the first administration. Results First Administration (March 1990). 1.1 Results are tabulated for individuals as a profile based on University Education norms (established by Biggs) and presented as average, above average or below average. Individual profiles ranged from + + + + + + indicating above average ratings on each of the six sub scales through Deep, Surface and Achieving Approaches (2 scores for each approach on motive and strategy) to - - - - + - indicating below average ratings on all scales excepting achieving motive (above average). A profile of 000000 would indicate average performances on all sub scales. 1.2 Group results in terms of means and standard deviations are presented for Industrial Arts, Mathematics and Humanities. Each of these groups are in the first year of a four year integrated B.Ed. teacher education program. While the major interest is in differences in performance across the subject groups, norms provided by Biggs on the basis of the performances of volunteer samples of CAE Education students are listed in the bottom rows for comparative purposes. The entries are raw score ranges for the 41st to 60th percentiles. (Biggs, 1987a. p38). Table 1 Means and Standard Deviations (in brackets) on four SPQ dimensions for three groups of beginning teacher education students. (March 1990). S.A. D.A. A.A. D.A.A. Industrial Arts 48.94 42.65 45.68 88.32 (1AA) (N=31) (6.27) (9.22) (8.94) (16.88) Mathematics 50.03 45.76 52.73 98.48 (1DA) (N=33) (6.05) (6.62) (6.92) (12.57) Humanities 46.20 46.50 50.80 97.30 (1EA) (N=74) (6.95) (7.66) (7.51) (13.54) Norms (males) 43-45 41-44 37-39 78-81 (N-298) Norms (females) 42-45 42-45 38-42 80-87 (N=673) Students in both Mathematics and Humanities programs have similar mean scores on deep achieving approaches (98.48 and 97.30 respectively) which are markedly higher than students in the Industrial Arts program (88.32). In addition, both Mathematics and Humanities students are higher than Industrial Arts students on achieving approaches and on deep approaches. Mathematics students rank highest on surface approaches. It is of interest to note that the achieving approaches of all three subject groupings are markedly higher than those of the normative samples provided by Biggs and there appears some tendency for scores of the groups to be higher than the middle range on Biggs' normative samples. Second Administration of SPQ (November 1990) Not all of the students who completed the March administration of the SPQ completed the second one. The numbers completing the second in relation to the first were as follows:- Humanities 39/74 Mathematics 28/33 Industrial Arts 17/31 The data provided in the following results and the analysis of changes refers to students who completed both surveys. Comparisons were made between the results of the subject grouping on six of the SPQ sub scales on the first and the second administrations. t Results 2.1 MANOVA: Two factors analysis comparing effects of group (between subjects) and administration time (within subjects). There were no significant effects for Surface Motive or Deep Strategy but significant effects at the 5% level were observed for the following: Surface Strategy A significant group effect was observed: F(2,76) = 3.06, p=0.053. In the first administration the means of the groups were 1AA=22.73, 1DA=24.04, 1EA=22.08. In the second administration they were 1AA=23.40, 1DA=24.32, 1EA=22.53. In both administrations it can be seen that group 1DA had a higher score, and thus this is the likely cause of the difference observed. Deep Motive Again a significant group effect was observed: F(2,76)=4.33,p=0.017. The mean scores for the groups in the first administration were 1AA=21.07, 1DA=22.75, 1EA=23.69. In the second administration they were 1AA=18.60, 1DA=22.18, 1EA=24.22. It can be seen that there is a systematic trend across the groups. Achieving Motive The within subject factor 'test' shows a significant result F(1,76)=21.38, p=0.000, indicating a significant administration time effect. This indicates that the mean achieving motive score for the first administration (25.62) was significantly higher than the mean achieving motive score for the second administration (23.05). Achieving Strategy As with Achieving motive the analysis shows that the mean achieving strategy score for the first session (24.78) was significantly greater than the mean achieving motive score for the second score (21.01); F(1,76) =56.26, p=0.000 A significant group effect is also seen in this factor: F(2,76) = 8.89, p=0.000. In the first administration the mean achieving strategy scores for the groups were 1AA=21.47, 1DA=26.18, 1EA=25.11. In the second administration they were 1AA=16.53, 1DA=23.43, 1EA=21.00. A group trend is observed with group1AA showing much lower scores than the other two. Group 1EA seems to be slightly lower than 1DA. Discussion of Results (i) Decline in Achieving Approach A noteable feature of the results is the decline in both the achieving motive and the achieving strategy scales for the group as a whole, between the first and second administrations and for each of the subject groupings (See Results 2.1). In particular the Industrial Arts group showed much lower scores than the other two groups. It is of interest to note that this trend is consistent with other research findings. Biggs (1987) for example cites a comparison of the first three undergraduate years across institutions (both university and CAE's) in Arts and Science Faculties. The main effects showed a decline throughout each year but especially in third year in both achieving approaches and deep approaches, though there were differences in patterns of change for Arts and Science students. (Biggs, 1987, p52-54). In the present study there is some slight decline in deep motive evident (Results 2.1 Deep Motive), for both Industrial Arts and Mathematics students but there is a clear trend across the subject groupings that is of significance with Humanities students on both occasions ranking highest on this subscale and Industrial Arts students the lowest. The decline in achieving approaches to learning of this group and to a lesser extent in deep approaches of beginning teacher education students, parallels the findings of more extensive studies of other tertiary students and should be of concern to tertiary educators. How can this decline in self rated approaches to learning be explained? Perhaps higher scores on achieving approaches and deep achieving approaches at the beginning of the tertiary education program reflect the first flush of enthusiasm of students for a new phase of development in their lives. Perhaps the higher initial scores reflect their intentions or resolutions in relation to study at university rather than being accurate self descriptions of how they typically approach study. A more likely explanation may be that during the first year of tertiary studies students face a discrepancy between their expectations of being a good student and the reality of a demanding work schedule. They may feel burdened by what is perceived to be a heavy workload of classes, reading and assignments and a considerable amount of course content, much of it in new fields to be learned within a relatively short period of time. The intentions of many for example, to achieve highly through systematic reviews of class material and to obtain a deep understanding of the material in their courses through wide reading and quiet reflection on course content may give way to more expedient motives and strategies associated with role learning, "cramming" and "getting by." Conversations with individual students and informal discussions with small groups of students provide some anecdotal evidence consistent with this explanation. (ii) Difference in approaches to learning across the three groups The relatively low ranking of the Industrial Arts group on deep approaches, achieving approaches and the deep achieving combination is evident on the first administration (Table 1) and on the second administration (Results 2-1). While each of the groups declined in their endorsement of the achieving strategy between administrations, this decline appears most marked for Industrial Arts. This may be an expression of decreasing academic confidence among some of the students associated with the experience of genuine difficulty in adapting to academic work at tertiary level. The Industrial Arts intake did include a significant proportion of students with relatively low HSC aggregates. However, it must also be noted that about half of the Industrial Arts intake included students with HSC aggregates in excess of 270 and a perusal of the individual profiles of the Industrial Arts students on the SPQ indicates a wide range in self rated approaches to learning. Some implications for tertiary teachers In view of the research of Biggs (1987) and others indicating there is a positive relationship between deep achieving approaches to study and academic achievement, it appears that there are students in each of the subject groupings and especially in Industrial Arts, who are likely to benefit from experiences which modify their approaches to learning in this direction. One important response to the above is to implement an intervention program with a orientation to the development of metacognitive skills. (It is intended to implement such a program in 1991). Such a program would involve teaching metacognitively and incorporating a range of learning experiences in the program which encourage reflection on learning goals and strategies in relation to course content. The encouragement of student questioning of a reflective kind, the sharing amongst peers of problem solving and study strategies, the use of reflective diaries and concept mapping are amongst the techniques that could be appropriate in such a program. An explanation offered in this paper for the decline in deep achieving approaches to learning has focussed on student perceptions of onerous workloads and difficulty in mastering new material. To the extent that difficulty with new concepts and discipline areas is a valid one, attempts by tertiary educators to begin instruction in ways which help beginning tertiary students relate new concepts and in some cases, new discipline areas to their existing knowledge base are also likely to be helpful responses. The work of Gunstone and White (1981), Driver (1983) and others on alternative frameworks in science suggests one helpful response. Finding out the common conceptions and misconceptions shared by students at the beginning of study of a new discipline enables the instructor to clarify misconceptions and to establish a sound basis for developing structured knowledge in an area. Howard (1990), also discusses the importance of "starting at the start" with beginning tertiary students and suggests that perhaps much instruction at tertiary level, in new discipline areas in particular, pays insufficient attention to this fundamental principle. The need for learners to have an appropriate framework of anchor points in which to assimilate new material was highlighted by Ausubel (1968). While this principle is widely accepted perhaps we could do more to provide an appropriate background for beginning instruction in some discipline areas. Howard outlines some possible remedies. He suggests that instructors introducing students to a new field of study, such as educational psychology or the sociology of education, might consider a framework of presentation based on four related questions. (1) How does the field topic relate to other fields/topics? (2) What are the workers in the field trying to achieve? (3) Why are the field's goals worth achieving? (4) What has been achieved so far? The first three questions provide a context for the new field while a consideration of the fourth question is included in much of the subsequent presentation of content. (Howard, 1990, p230-231). One possible response of course to reducing the likelihood of academic failure amongst beginning tertiary students is to set higher minimum aggregates for tertiary entrance. Individual tertiary institutions have collated data which strongly suggest that increasing minimum HSC aggregates to 270 or 300 or some other number, is likely to reduce the failure rate accordingly. However, in an era in which increasing tertiary education opportunities for more people is considered both necessary and just and competition amongst institutions for students exists, this option becomes less attractive. Responses by tertiary teachers and institutions that are likely to make teaching and learning more effective for an increasing diversity of students are needed. The development of teaching procedures and learning formats which help beginning tertiary students to change their approaches to learning, where appropriate, so these become more metacognitive in nature, appear to have the potential to increase student satisfaction with learning and improve academic performance. BIBLIOGRAPHY Ausubel, D.P. (1968). Educational psychology: a cognitive view? New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Baird, J. and Mitchell, I. (Eds). (1986). Improving the quality of teaching and learning. An Australian case study - The PEEL project. Melbourne: Monash University Printery. Biggs, J.B. (1988). :"The role of metacognition in enhancing learning". Australian Journal of Education. Vol. 32, No. 2., 1988, 127-138. Biggs, J.B. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Melbourne: A.C.E.R. Biggs, J.B. (1984). "Motivational patterns, learning strategies and subjectively perceived success in secondary and tertiary students", in Kirby, J.R. (Ed.) (1984). Cognitive strategies and educational performance. New York: Academic Press. Biggs, J.B. (1982). "Student motivation and study strategies in university and C.A.E. populations". Higher Education research and development. 1, 33- 55. Driver, R. (1983). The pupil as scientist. Milton Keynes: Open University. Edwards, J. (1986). The effects of metacognitive training in study skills on student approaches to learning and examination performance. University of Newcastle: Unpublished Master of Psychology (Educational) thesis. Entwistle, N. and Wilson, J.D. (1977). Degrees of excellence: the academic achievement game. London: Hodder and Stoughton. Gunstone, R.F. and White, R.T. (1981). "Understanding of gravity", Science Education, 65, 291- 299. Howard, Robert (1990). "The bases of topics and disciplines: a framework for instruction". Unicorn. Journal of the Australian College of Education. Vol.16 No.4. November, 1990. p228-231. Tabberer, R. (1984). "Introducing study skills at 16-19", Educational Research. 26, p.1-6. Watkins, D. and Hattie, J. (1981). "The learning processes of Australian university students: Investigations of contextual and personological factors". British journal of educational psychology. 51, 384-93.