TERTIARY LEARNING A SYMPOSIUM1 John A Clarke and Barry C Dart2 School of Learning and Development Faculty of Education Kelvin Grove Campus Queensland University of Technology This Symposium reports on some of the outcomes of the Study of Tertiary Learning Project 1991, a research project funded by the Faculty of Education, Queensland University of Technology. It reports specifically on the following aspects of the project: A comparison of students' and their lecturers' perceptions of the cognitive and affective aspects of their learning environments. The relationship between students' learning processes and their perceptions of the cognitive and affective aspects of their learning environments. The validity, reliability and factorial structure of Stevenson's "Cognitive Holding Power Questionnaire" for preservice teacher education students. Towards a comprehensive quantitative measure of classroom learning environments. __________________ 1 Presented at the Annual Conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education, Ramada Inn, Gold Coast, December, 1991. 2 The authors wish to thank their colleague Paul Burnett for advice on the appropriate statistical procedures to use and their interpretation. INTRODUCTION This symposium focuses on small group learning at the tertiary level where "small group" is defined here as up to 30 students. It deals specifically with the learning behaviour of teacher education students and the learning environments which they and their lecturers create. The research reported has been developed within the framework provided by a model of factors influencing learning which has been reported elsewhere (Clarke and Dart; 1991). The model assumes an interactionist view of learning where learning, being a specific form of behaviour, can be interpreted within Lewin's (1951) Field Theory framework. Lewin, in his classical equation B=f(P,E), defines Behaviour (B) as a function of the interdependent components P, the person, and E, the psychosocial environment as interpreted by the person. The model synthesizes a number of comprehensive and well-accepted models of influences on student learning at the tertiary level (Biggs, 1989, 1990a; Entwistle, 1987; McKeachie et al, 1986) into the Lewinian equation producing a model which indicates that learning is a complex interactive product of student individual characteristics and the cognitive and affective press of a specific learning environment. The outcome of this synthesis is that the learning behaviour B of a given student is influenced by: P variables: - cognitive variables: prior knowledge intellectual skills and abilities learning approaches and style - affective variables: personality motivation E variables: - cognitive press arising from the teacher's and other students' characteristics and behaviour; and curriculum and specific tasks - affective press arising from the teacher's and other students' characteristics and behaviour curriculum and specific tasks The specific aspects addressed in the symposium are: A: ECOLOGICAL MAP OF THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT B: SUBSTANTIVE QUESTIONS 1. A comparison of student and lecturer perceptions of their learning environments; and 2. The relationship between student study processes and their perceptions of the learning environment. C: SOME PSYCHOMETRIC CONSIDERATIONS 3. An evaluation of the Cognitive Holding Power Questionnaire (CHPQ) (Stevenson; 1990) with regard to teacher education students; 4. Initial steps toward the development of a comprehensive learning environment inventory incorporating both cognitive and affective press; RELATED LITERATURE A brief review of relevant literature based on selected aspects of the model follows. With respect to "P" variables: There has been considerable research on learning or study processes (e.g. Biggs, 1987; Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983; Watkins, 1982). Recent research and theorizing (Biggs, 1990a; Dart & Clarke, 1991) indicate that students choose their approach to a particular learning task based on the value they place on the outcome and the expectation they have about their own ability to succeed with the task. A major outcome of the Dart and Clarke (1991) study was that "...if the students perceive that the (task)... requires understanding and provides opportunities to apply... knowledge and skills (which) ...enhance their personal competencies, they will choose to use a deep approach" (p. 11). Research on motivational processes indicates that when students feel responsible for their own learning, they tend to adopt a Deep Approach (Biggs, 1985; Dart & Clarke, 1991; Ramsden, 1985). With respect to "E" variables: Research on post-secondary learning environments is small compared to the elementary and secondary level (Fraser, 1989). Based on the model, learning environments can be considered as having cognitive and affective elements. Fraser and Tregaust (1986) provide a review of the affective area while Stevenson (1986a, 1986b) deals with the cognitive area. With respect to the interaction of "P" and "E": Researchers have investigated the interactive influence of personal and contextual variables on learning processes (e.g. Ramsden & Entwistle, 1981; Watkins & Hattie, 1985) and the influence of environment on approaches to learning (e.g. Ramsden, 1985; Ramsden et al, 1989). METHODOLOGY Sample The sample included 470 first and second year students in 32 classes with their 17 lecturers in the B.Ed. (Sec) course at QUT in Brisbane. The major characteristics of the student sample are shown in Table 1. _________________________ Table 1 somewhere here _________________________ At the end of semester 1 1991, the students completed questionnaires which dealt with their learning and motivational processes and their perceptions of the cognitive and affective press of their learning environments. Lecturers completed questionnaires on their perceptions of the cognitive and affective press in their learning environments. Instruments Student Learning Processes The Study Processes Questionnaire (SPQ) (Biggs; 1987) is a comprehensive 42 item instrument, measuring combinations of students' Surface, Deep and Achieving approaches to study. For definitions of these concepts, see Biggs (1987). There are six subscales: Surface Motive, Surface Strategy, Deep Motive, Deep Strategy, Achieving Motive and Achieving Strategy. Pairs of conceptually related subscales can be added to give a measure of an approach. For example, Surface Motive plus Surface Strategy provides a measure of Surface Approach and so on. Student Motivational Processes Students completed the Academic Locus of Control Scale (ALC), a 28-item measure of beliefs in personal control in academic settings for college students developed by Trice (1985). The items ...reflect Rotter's (1966) internal/external distinction where internal attributions (low scores) index belief that personal effort is required to achieve success in academic settings, while external attributions (high scores) suggest that powerful others or situational factors largely determine success or failure" (Trice, Ogden, Stevens and Booth; 1987: 483). (Parentheses are Trice et al's). Student Perceptions of Cognitive Press Stevenson (1986a, 1986b) by synthesizing ideas derived from theories on cognitive processing and cognitive structure (Anderson, 1980, 1982; Fischer, 1980; Scadura, 1980, 1981) has conceptualized the cognitive demands of a learning environment as Cognitive Holding Power (CHP). This he defines as "...a characteristic of a learning setting which presses students into different kinds of cognitive activity" (Stevenson; 1990, 1) and measures at the post-secondary level with a 30 item instrument the CHPQ (Stevenson; 1990). The CHPQ has 2 major subscales which measure first and second order cognitive holding power. See Stevenson (1990) for definitions and examples. Student Perceptions of Affective Press The affective characteristics of the learning environments were measured using the College and University Classroom Environment Inventory (CUCEI) developed by Fraser and Tregaust (1986). The CUCEI is a 49 item instrument designed to gather perceptions of the psychosocial characteristics of learning environments and consists of 7 scales: Personalization, Involvement, Student Cohesiveness, Satisfaction, Task Orientation, Innovation and Individualization. See Fraser and Tregaust (1986) for definitions. Clarke (1990) reports additional reliability data based on a QUT sample. The CUCEI is available in actual and preferred forms for both students and lecturers. The Student Actual form was used here. Lecturer Perceptions of Cognitive Press The CHPQ (Stevenson; 1990) was modified into a Lecturer Form by changing the original questions in an appropriate way. For example "I copy what the lecturer does" became "Students copy what I do" "I feel I have to copy what the lecturer does" became "Students feel that they have to copy what I do" and "The lecturer encourages students to copy what he/she does" became "I encourage students to copy what I do". Lecturer Perceptions of Affective Press The Lecturer Actual Form of the CUCEI was used here. Analysis The data was analysed using the SPSSX package (SPSS Inc; 1988). The particular procedures used are discussed under each section. There has been considerable debate with regard to the appropriate unit of analysis in classroom-based research of the type reported here (Ames and Archer, 1988; Fraser, 1985). Because the interest here is in each student's perception of the classroom context and how these perceptions related to personal variables and lecturers' perceptions, the individual score was used as the unit of analysis rather than the mean score of the students at the classroom level. Ryan and Grolnick (1986) suggest that it is necessary to determine the "...functional significance of the environment for the individual when concerned with the effects of the environment on self-related variables" (p. 557). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION A: ECOLOGICAL MAP OF THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT Consistent with the "ecological map" concept used in the development of the model directing this research (Clarke and Dart; 1991), an evaluation of the relationships which existed among the significant P and E variables was made prior to any analysis of the substantive questions being addressed in the project. The REGRESSION procedure was used to carry out multiple regression analyses with Satisfaction, Locus of Control, First and Second Order Cognitive Holding Power and Approaches to Learning (Surface, Deep, and Achieving) as dependent variables. Because of the high correlation between the Involvement and Satisfaction subscales of the CUCEI (r = 0.69) it was decided to omit the Involvement scores from these analyses. Results showing the significant predictor variables and the percentage increment in explained variance are reported in Table 2. _________________________ Table 2 somewhere here _________________________ The major outcomes are: (a) Student Satisfaction was related to: . high Innovation - the extent to which a range of different learning experiences, teaching approaches and assignments occur. . high Task Orientation - the extent to which classroom activities are well organised; . high Cohesiveness - the amount of friendliness between students; . high Deep Motive - the degree to which students are interested in their learning; and . high Individualization - the extent to which individual needs are taken into account by the lecturer. (b) Student Locus of Control (feeling of being able to control the outcomes of their learning) was related to: . high Achieving Strategy - a highly organised approach to study; . low Surface Motive - little concern with avoiding failure; and . high Deep Motive - a lot of interest in the learning task; (c) First Order Cognitive Holding Power (a learning environment where students feel pressured into using specific procedures, which either they are familiar with or are available from the lecturer, to reproduce information) was related to: . high Surface Strategy - the use of rote learning techniques; and . low Individualisation - where little attention is paid to individual differences. (d) Second Order Cognitive Holding Power (an environment promoting generation of ideas, linking of new information with prior knowledge, development of appropriate strategies, and metacognitive thinking) was related to: . high Deep Strategy - learning strategies which aim at understanding; . high Satisfaction - the degree to which students enjoy class activities; and . low Surface Strategy - little use of reproductive learning strategies. (e) Surface Approach to Learning (the students reduces what is to be learnt to the status of unconnected facts to be memorized and reproduced at a later time) was related to: . high First Order Cognitive Holding Power - a learning environment characterized by a press to reproduce knowledge; . high Achieving Approach - an organized approach taken to learning; . external Locus of Control - a belief that one has little control over the outcomes of their learning; and . low Second Order Cognitive Holding Power - a learning environment perceived as requiring little generation of ideas or personal construction of meaning. (f) Deep Approach to Learning (the student attempts to make sense of what is to be learnt - ideas and concepts - and engages in thinking, integration of ideas etc.) was related to: . high Second Order Cognitive Holding Power - a learning environment perceived as requiring students to engage in metacognitive thinking and to be actively involved in constructing their own understandings; and . high Achieving Approach - an approach to learning characterised by the organization of study processes. (g) Achieving Approach to Learning was related to: . an Internal Locus of Control orientation - the feeling of being able to control learning outcomes; . Surface Approach to Learning; and . Deep Approach to Learning. The relationship between Achieving Approach and both the Surface and Deep Approaches is consistent with Biggs' (1987) conceptualization of Achieving Approach as one that can align with both Surface and Deep Approaches because Surface and Deep relate to how the learner engages content of learning and Achieving refers to how the learner organizes the context of learning. For information only and not discussed here, the reliability of all the scales used in the study are reported in Table 3. In that Table, the results are also compared with previously published Australian and overseas results. _________________________ Table 3 somewhere here _________________________ B: SUBSTANTIVE QUESTIONS 1. Comparison of Student and Lecturer Perceptions of the Learning Environment Lecturer and student perceptions of the affective and cognitive dimensions of their classroom environment were compared using the MANOVA procedure. A one-way two-group MANOVA in which the group of 9 environment scales constituted the dependent variables was performed. Wilks' lambda criterion was significant (p<0.000) and consequently the univariate ANOVA results were examined for the 9 scales individually. Means and standard deviations are reported in Table 4 . Effect sizes are also given. These have been calculated according to the method used by Biggs (1990b), whereby the students' means are subtracted from the lecturers' means and divided by the larger of the two standard deviations to yield a conservative estimate of effect size. ________________________ Table 4 somewhere here _________________________ The major outcomes are: (a) Lecturers perceived significantly more Personalisation, Cohesiveness, Satisfaction, Task Orientation, and Second Order Cognitive Holding Power than did their students; and (b) Students perceived significantly more First Order Cognitive Holding Power than did their lecturers. In sum, lecturers believe more so than their students that in their classrooms . a significant amount of personal interaction occurs between lecturer and students, . students are helpful towards each other, . students enjoy their classes, . class activities are clear and well organised, and . students are required to be actively involved in constructing their own understandings and engage in metacognitive thinking. On the other hand, students believe more so than their lecturers that in their classrooms there is more emphasis on . listening to the lecturer and . copying down what the lecturer says and feels is important. 2. The Relationship between Student Learning Processes and their Perceptions of the Learning Environment The relationships between perceived classroom environment and study approaches were analysed by canonical correlation analysis using the MANOVA procedure. Three interpretable canonical correlations (Rc.) were found between these sets of variables using Thorndike (1978, p.183) criterion that only squared canonical correlations greater than 0.10 should be considered meaningful. The decision rule used to identify the important variables for each significant canonical correlation was based on Stevens (1986) and is a conservative approach which decreases the chance of making a Type 1 error. The rule is: (i) all correlations between dependent and canonical variables greater than 0.4 were considered; and then (ii) the standardized canonical coefficients were examined in a relative way to each of the others in that particular item set and only those greater than 0.4 were accepted. These relationships are shown in Table 5. _______________________ Table 5 somewhere here _______________________ The results, in order of greatest significance were: Rc= 0.61. The first canonical correlation linked classrooms perceived as providing high press for metacognitive thinking and linking new information with old with strategies that lead students to generate meaning and to integrate ideas and concepts. Rc = 0.45. The second canonical correlation linked classrooms perceived as exerting high press on students to engage a task through listening to the lecturer and copying what the lecturer says or does in relation to the task with an approach to learning in which many reproductive or rote learning strategies were evident. Rc = 0.33. The third canonical correlation linked classrooms perceived as not fostering friendly interpersonal relationships but as giving high satisfaction with low anxiety and high interest in learning in students. C: SOME PSYCHOMETRIC CONSIDERATIONS 3. Evaluation of the CHPQ The CHPQ was developed in a TAFE environment. This project provided the opportunity to evaluate its factor structure, validity and reliability in a different setting. (a) Factor Structure Stevenson (1990) extracted 8 factors accounting for 41% of variance. Using the Stevenson criteria of factor scores >0.3 and any number of items per factor, analysis of the QUT data yielded 6 factors accounting for 35.5% of variance. These are compared in Table 6 using the Stevenson factors as a reference point. Items 10, 14 and 25 were not included in the analysis on Stevenson's advice (1990, p.13). _______________________ Table 6 somewhere here _______________________ The factors have a number of similarities but some differences. For convenience, henceforth Stevenson's factors will be labelled SF and the QUT factors labelled CF. The major points of similarity and difference are: 1. Stevenson's largest factor SF1, Listening and Watching, occurs essentially as two factors in the QUT data - CF1, Lecturer as Expert, and CF2, Copying and Modelling. The "tradesman-apprentice" nature of the TAFE environment is not so prevalent in the teacher education situation and, although the two elements of "expert" and "copying" still emerge, they are not integrated as they would be in the practical trade settings. 2. Notions of "discovering" and "checking and linking" emerge in both sets of data. However, the more verbal, abstract teacher education settings integrate these aspects in CF4, Encouraged to Check, Link and Try Ideas, compared to the practical settings where the activities can be discrete as in SF2, Encouraged to Check and Link, and SF3, Discovering. 3. The concept of "validating" is common to both settings (SF5 and CF5). 4. There has been a deliberate policy in recent years in the teacher education courses on Kelvin Grove Campus of promoting "autonomous learning". This could well account for the emergence of factors CF3, Checking and Trying Out Ideas, and CF6, Autonomous Learning. In the TAFE settings, the items in these factors are split into small disparate factors SF4, Autonomous Action, SF6, Finding Out for Oneself, SF7, Teacher Showing, and SF8, Seeking Help. Based on the assumption of two underlying theoretical constructs - first and second order cognitive holding power - Stevenson carried out a forced 2 factor solution producing groupings of items which indeed did reflect the two constructs. A forced 2 factor analysis of the QUT data produced identical results in terms of grouping of items. (b) Reliability Stevenson (1990) reports Cronbach 's ranging from 0.82 to 0.86 for the First Order Cognitive Holding Power scale and 0.77 to 0.87 for the Second Order Cognitive Holding Power scale. The QUT data had Cronbach 's of 0.87 for the First Order Cognitive Holding Power scale and 0.85 for the Second Order Cognitive Holding Power scale. (c) Validity Logically, an environmental press typified by First Order Cognitive Holding Power is one that could be predicted as fostering the use of Surface Strategies and a Surface Approach while one typified by Second Order Cognitive Holding Power could well foster the use of Deep Strategies and a Deep Approach. Some of the relationships established in the regression analyses support these notions. Further evidence of the predictive validity of the First and Second Order Cognitive Holding Power scales can be obtained by measuring the correlation between these scales and the Surface and Deep Approach scales of the SPQ. These indicate highly significant relationships between First Order Cognitive Holding Power and Surface Strategy (r = 0.45, p<0.001) and Surface Approach (r = 0.38, p<0.001) and between Second Order Cognitive Holding Power and Deep Strategy (r = 0.55, P<0.001) and Deep Approach (r = 0.55, p<0.001). The replication of the factor structure of the First Order Cognitive Holding Power and the Second Order Cognitive Holding Power scales confirms the construct validity of the questionnaire. Informal feedback from some students and lecturers indicated that the notion of "copying" was somewhat alien to teacher education settings and hence those items using that concept could be regarded as reducing the face validity of the CHPQ somewhat. 4. Production of a Comprehensive Measure of Learning Environment Press The model of factors influencing tertiary learning mentioned earlier (Clarke and Dart; 1991) proposes that the variety of environmental influences on learning could be synthesized into cognitive press and affective press. As the first step in a long-term project of developing a single comprehensive and quantitative measure of the environmental press of learning environments, student responses to the items from the CUCEI and the CHPQ were pooled and analysed using a procedure developed by Burnett and reported in Fanshawe and Burnett (1991). In brief, the procedure has 6 steps: Step 1 Submit all items to a principal components analysis with a varimax rotation. Identify the number of factors which have five or more items with a factor loading of 0.4 or greater. Step 2 Submit all items to a principal components analysis with a varimax rotation, stipulating the number of factors identified in Step 1. Step 3 Compute Cronbach reliability coefficients on all items with loadings of 0.4 or greater for each of the factors generated in Step 2. Step 4 Subjectively select items to represent each subscale using three criteria: . equal number of items in each scale; . items should have face validity; . items should have high corrected item-total correlations. Step 5 Submit the selected items to a principal components analysis with a varimax rotation. The number of factors extracted should equal the number of factors originally extracted in Step 1 and the items from the same subscale should load on the one factor with loadings of 0.4 or greater. Step 6 Compute the Cronbach reliability coefficient for each of the subscales. This procedure produced the factors summarized in Table 7. There are five 7 item factors accounting for 37.4% of variance with Cronbach 's ranging from 0.84 to 0.86. _________________________ Table 7 somewhere here _________________________ The factors identify a press toward - warmth and challenge (Factor 1) (17.2%) ( = 0.86) - positive interpersonal relationships (Factor 2) (6.9%) ( = 0.86) - enjoying classroom activities (Factor 3) (5.4%) ( = 0.88) - quantitative learning (Factor 4) (4.7%) ( = 0.87) - qualitative learning (Factor 5) (3.2%) ( = 0.84) The outcomes of this analysis are obviously delimited by the original items in the CHPQ and the CUCEI. However, the direction given by the interactive model of influences on student learning referred to earlier (Clarke and Dart; 1991) is that environmental press is an interactive product of both cognitive and affective elements. Factor 1, the strongest factor, reminiscent of concepts synthesized from theory and research by Campbell (1968) and Dunkin (1966), reflects such an interaction and provides the incentive to proceed with the notion of developing a comprehensive instrument. That work is now proceeding (Clarke; in process). REFERENCES Ames, C. and Archer, J. (1988) Achievement goals in the classroom: Students' learning strategies and motivation processes. journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 260-267. Anderson, J.R. (1980) Cognitive Psychology and its Implications. San Francisco: Freeman and Company. Anderson, J.R. (1982) Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89(4), 369-406. Biggs, J.B. (1985) The role of metalearning in study processes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 55, 185-212. Biggs, J.B. (1987) Student Approaches to Learning and Studying. Hawthorn, Vic.: ACER. Biggs, J.B. (1989) Approaches to the enhancement of tertiary learning. Higher Education Research and Development, 8(1), 7-25. Biggs, J.B. (1990a) Teaching design for learning. Keynote discussion paper, Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia annual conference, Brisbane. Biggs, J.B. (1990b) Asian students' approaches to learning: Implications for teaching overseas students. Paper presented at the Eighth Australasian Learning and Language Conference, QUT Brisbane. Campbell, W.J. (1968) Studies of teaching I: Classroom practices. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 3(1), 97-124. Clarke, J.A. (in process) The development of a comprehensive quantitative measure of the cognitive and affective press of tertiary learning environments. Unpublished manuscript. School of Learning and Development, Queensland University of Technology. Clarke, J.A. (1990) The reliability of the College and University Classroom Environment Inventory: Some Australian data. Psychological Reports, 66, 1339-1342. Clarke, J.A. and Dart, B.C. (1991) Improving the learning of tertiary students: A theoretical model and its implementation. Research and Development in Higher Education, 14, in press. Dart, B.C. and Clarke, J.A. (1991) Helping students become better learners: A teacher education case study. Higher Education. In press. Dunkin, M.J. (1966) Some determinants of teacher warmth and directiveness. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Queensland. Entwistle, N.J. (1987) Understanding Classroom Learning. London: Hodder and Stoughton. Entwistle, N.J. and Ramsden, P. (1983) Understanding Student Learning. London: Croom Helm. Fanshawe, J.P. and Burnett, P.C. (1991) Assessing school-related stressors and coping mechanisms in adolescents. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 61, 92-98. Fischer, K.W.A. (1980) A theory of cognitive development: The control and construction of hierarchies of skills. Psychological Review, 87(6), 477-531. Fraser, B.J. (1985) Classroom Environment. London: Croom Helm Fraser, B.J. (1989) Twenty years of classroom climate work: progress and prospect. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 21,307-327. Fraser, B.J. and Tregaust, D.F. (1986) Validity and use of an instrument for assessing classroom psychosocial environment in higher education. Higher Education, 15, 37-57. Lewin, K. (1951) Field Theory in Social Science: Selected Theoretical Papers. D. Cartwright (Ed.). New York: Harper and Row. McKeachie, W,.J., Pintrich, P.R., Lin, Y. and Smith, D. (1986) Teaching and Learning in the College Classroom. The University of Michigan: NCRIPTAL. Ramsden, P. (1985) Student learning research: retrospect and prospect. Higher Education Research and Development, 4, 51-69. Ramsden, P. and Entwistle, N.J. (1981) Effects of academic departments on students approaches to studying. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 367-383. Ramsden, P., Martin, E. and Bowden, J. (1989) School environment and sixth form pupils approaches to learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 59, 129-142. Ryan, R.M. and Grolnick, W.S (1986) Origins ans pawns in the classroom: Self-report and projective assessments of individual differences in children's perceptions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 500-558. Scadura, J.M. (1980) Theoretical foundations of instruction: A systems alternative to cognitive psychology. Journal of Structural Learning, 6, 347-394. Scadura, J.M. (1981) Problem solving in schools and beyond: Transitions from naive to the neophyte to the master. Educational Psychologist, 16(3), 139-150. SPSS Inc (1988) SPSS-X User's Guide 3rd Edition.Chicago: SPSS Inc. Stevens, J. (1986) Applied Multivariate Statistics fo the Social Sciences. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Stevenson, J.C. (1986a) Adaptability: theoretical considerations. Journal of Structural Learning, 9, 107-117. Stevenson, J.C. (1986b) Adaptability: experimental studies. Journal of Structural Learning, 9, 119-139. Stevenson, J.C. (1990) Conceptualization and measurement of cognitive holding power in Technical and Further Education learning settings. Paper presented at the AARE annual conference, Sydney. Thorndike, R.L. (1978) Correlational Procedures for Research. New York: Gardner Press. Trice, A. (1985) An academic locus of control scale for college students. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 61, 1003-1046. Trice, A, et al (1987) Concurrent validity of the Academic Locus of Control Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 47(2), 483-486. Watkins, D. (1982) Identifying the study process dimensions of Australian university students. Australian Journal of Education, 26, 77-85. Watkins, D. and Hattie, J. (1985) A longitudinal study of the approaches to learning of Australian tertiary students. Human Learning, 4, 127-141. Table 1 Profile of Student Sample _______________________________________________ Year 1 Year 2 Total _______________________________________________ A/H S/T A/H S/T _________________________________________________________ Male 21 37 24 46 126 _________________________________________________________ Female 76 122 51 93 344 _________________________________________________________ Totals: 97 159 75 139 _________________________________________________________ 256 214 470 _____________________________________ Table 2 Relationship between Selected Outcomes and other Variables VARIABLE BETA INCREMENT in R2 (1) SATISFACTION Innovation 0.24 25.6% Task Orientation 0.32 11.9% Cohesiveness 0.26 6.4% Deep Motive 0.17 2.8% Individualization 0.19 2.3 Multiple R = 0.70 Adjusted R2 = 49.0% _________________________________________________________ (2) LOCUS OF CONTROL Achieving Strategy -0.46 24.1% Surface Motive 0.23 5.5% Deep Motive -0.20 3.5% Multiple R = 0.58 Adjusted R2 = 33.1% _________________________________________________________ (3) FIRST ORDER COGNITIVE HOLDING POWER (FOCHP) Surface Strategy 0.41 18.9% Individualization -0.27 7.1% Multiple R = 0.51 Adjusted R2 = 26.1% _________________________________________________________ (4) SECOND ORDER COGNITIVE HOLDING POWER (SOCHP) Deep Strategy 0.49 31.2% Satisfaction 0.24 6.5% Surface Strat. -0.20 3.6% Multiple R = 0.65 Adjusted R2 = 41.3% _________________________________________________________ (5) SURFACE APPROACH FOCHP 0.24 13.4% Achieving Approach 0.42 4.0% Locus of Control 0.35 10.5% SOCHP -0.20 3.4% Multiple R = 0.57 Adjusted R2 = 31.3% _________________________________________________________ (6) DEEP APPROACH SOCHP 0.49 29.7% Achieving A. 0.30 8.5% Multiple R = 0.62 Adjusted R2 = 38.2% _________________________________________________________ (7) ACHIEVING APPROACH Locus of Control -0.46 21.9% Surface Approach 0.37 12.9% Deep Approach 0.27 6.2% Multiple R = 0.64 Adjusted R2 = 41.0% _________________________________________________________ All Beta values are significant at p<0.001 Table 3 Cronbach 's for All Scales Used in the Project and a Comparison with Existing Results Study Processes Questionnaire B Surface Motive 0.55 0.51 Surface Strategy 0.58 0.62 Surface Approach 0.68 0.68 Deep Motive 0.64 0.63 Deep Strategy 0.72 0.73 Deep Approach 0.79 0.79 Achieving Motive 0.67 0.71 Achieving Strategy 0.73 0.75 Achieving Approach 0.76 0.77 Surface Achieving Approach 0.77 0.74 Deep Achieving Approach 0.83 0.85 T Academic Locus of Control 0.7 not reported College and University Environment Inventory C F&T Cohesiveness 0.9 0.9 0.9 Individualisation 0.7 0.8 0.8 Innovation 0.7 0.8 0.8 Involvement 0.7 0.7 0.7 Personalisation 0.8 0.8 0.8 Satisfaction 0.9 0.9 0.9 Task Orientation 0.6 0.5 0.8 Cognitive Holding Power Questionnaire S First Order 0.9 0.9 Second Order 0.9 0.8 B: Biggs (1987) (CAE sample) C: Clarke (1990) F&T: Fraser and Tregaust (1986) S: Stevenson (1990) T: Trice (1985) Table 4 Comparison of Lecturer and Student Perceptions of the Learning Environment _________________________________________________________ Environment Mean SD Effect Size _________________________________________________________ Personalization L 4.61 0.64 0.78 S 4.11 0.43 Cohesiveness L 3.71 0.57 0.41 S 3.34 0.91 Satisfaction L 4.13 0.45 0.52 S 3.70 0.82 Task Orientation L 3.97 0.54 0.71 S 3.53 0.62 First Order L 2.42 0.39 -0.53 Cognitive Holding S 2.70 0.54 Power Second Order L 3.88 0.43 0.87 Cognitive Holding S 3.46 0.49 Power _________________________________________________________ L: Lecturers S: Students Table 5 Relationships between Perceived Environment and Approaches to Learning CLASSROOM 1 2 3 4 5 ENVIRONMENT Personaln Involvement Cohesive -0.47(a) -0.48(b) Satisfactn Task Orientn -0.68 -0.70 Innovation -0.60 -0.61 Individualn 0.82 0.70 FOCHP -0.88 -0.95 SOCHP -0.93 -0.90 LEARNING APPROACH Surf Mot -0.52 0.43 -0.80 0.58 Surf Strat -0.83 -0.88 Deep Mot Deep Strat -0.90 -0.62 Ach Mot -0.84 -0.94 Ach Strat -0.73 -0.85 Values in Table: a = correlation between dependent and canonical variables; b = standardized canonical coefficients for dependent variables. Table 6 Comparison of Stevenson and Clarke Factors _________________________________________________________ Stevenson Factors Clarke Factors _________________________________________________________ F1 Listening & F1 Lecturer as Expert Watching (14.4%) (21.2%) Item 5,6,8,9,16,17, Item 5,6,8,9,18,20,28 18,20,22,23,24,28,30 F2 Copying and Modelling (14.9%) Item 16,17,24,26,30 --------------------------------------------------------- F2 Encouraged to F4 Encouraged to Check, Check and Link (5.1%) Link and Try Ideas(4.8%) Item 3,13,21,29 Item 3,11,15,21 F3 Discovering (4.8%) Item 2,3,4,15 --------------------------------------------------------- F5 Validating (3.9%) F5 Validating (4.7%) Item 7,12,19 Item 7,12,29 --------------------------------------------------------- F4 Autonomous Action F6 Autonomous Learning (4.5%) (4.2%) Item 14,25 Item 4,22,27 F6 Finding Out for F3 Checking and Trying Oneself (3.4%) Out Ideas (6.7%) Item 27 Item 1,2,13,19,(-)23 F7 Teacher Showing (2.7%) Item 26 F8 Seeking Help (2.3%) Item 1,10 _________________________________________________________ Table 7 Factors of a Measure of a Comprehensive Learning Environment Press Factor 1 Press toward warmth and challenge (17.2%) ( = 0.86) The lecturer/tutor helps each student who is having trouble with the work. (0.58) The lecturer/tutor considers students' feelings. (0.55) Teaching approaches in this class are characterized by innovation and variety. (0.53) The lecturer/tutor often thinks of unusual class activities. (0.53) Students have a say in how class time is spent. (0.48) Teaching approaches allow students to proceed at their own pace. (0.41) The lecturer/tutor encourages students to try out new ideas. (0.41) Factor 2 Press toward Positive Interpersonal Relationships (6.9%) ( = 0.86) Students in this class get to know each other well. (0.74) Students don't have much of a chance to get to know each other in this class. (-) (0.71) Each student knows the other members of the class by their first names. (0.70) The class is made up of individuals who don't know each other well. (-) (0.67) Students in this class aren't very interested in getting to know other students. (-) (0.64) It takes a long time to get to know everybody by his/her first name in this class. (-) (0.62) Friendships are made among students in this class. (0.60) Factor 3 Press toward Enjoying Classroom Activities (5.4%) ( = 0.88) Classes are boring. (-) (0.57) Classes are a waste of time. (-) (0.56) Students enjoy going to this class. (0.53) Students "clockwatch" in this class. (-) (0.49) Students are dissatisfied with what is done in the class. (-) (0.48) Classes are interesting. (0.48) The students look forward to coming to classes. (0.47) Factor 4 Press toward Reproducing Expert Knowledge (Quantitative Learning) (4.7%) ( = 0.87) I feel I have to do what the lecturer/tutor tells me. (0.74) I feel I have to work exactly as I am shown. (0.70) I feel I have to copy what the lecturer/tutor does. (0.66) I rely on the lecturer/tutor for new ideas. (0.59) The lecturer/tutor encourages students to copy what he/she does. (0.58) The lecturer/tutor encourages students to do what they are told. (0.57) The lecturer/tutor encourages students to do their work exactly as they are shown. (0.57) Factor 5 Press Toward Constructing Own Knowledge (Qualitative Learning) (3.2%) ( = 0.84) I feel I have to find links between the things I learn. (0.66) I feel I have to try out new ideas. (0.65) I feel I have to check my results against things I know. (0.58) I feel I have to find out information for myself. (0.52) The lecturer/tutor encourages students to find out things for themselves. (0.46) The lecturer/tutor encourages students to check their results against things they know. (0.46) The lecturer/tutor encourages students to find links between the things they learn. (0.41) The lecturer/tutor encourages students to ask questions to check their results. (0.41)