Enfoques de aprendizajeun análisis de las propiedades psicométricas básicas de tres cuestionarios cortos

  1. Carmen Fernández - Polvillo 1
  2. José Luis Arquero 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Sevilla
    info

    Universidad de Sevilla

    Sevilla, España

    ROR https://ror.org/03yxnpp24

Journal:
Educade: revista de educación en contabilidad, finanzas y administración de empresas

ISSN: 2173-478X

Year of publication: 2015

Issue: 6

Pages: 23-34

Type: Article

DOI: 10.12795/EDUCADE.2015.I06.03 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

More publications in: Educade: revista de educación en contabilidad, finanzas y administración de empresas

Abstract

The educational model resulted from the integration in the European Higher Education Area demands from the teaching staff to a ct as managers of the learning context, selecting resources and the appropriate pedagogy among several alternatives. The questionnaires that measure the approaches to learning of students could be a valuable tool in order to make an initial diagnosis of students’ characteristics, as well as to assess the impact of pedagogical innovations. Short questionnaires are more demanded by practitioners due to several reasons. Frequently form part of a set of measures, there are resource constraints (time and financial) to administer and process the data, and long questionnaires are more likely to be incompletely answered. Only one version of short questionnaires measuring approaches to learning has been validated in Spanish: the version of the Revised SPQ-2f (Biggs et al., 2001 ) by Hernández Pina et al., (2005). This is a 20 items version focusing in two approaches: deep and surface. However, further research (e.g. Entwistle et al., 2002; Fox et al. 2001, or Tait et al., 1998) keep supporting the existence of the third approach: achieving. No short questionnaire measuring these three approaches has been validated in Spanish. In this line the main aim of the paper is to present the basic psychometric properties of the Spanish versions of the three existing short instruments derive d from the initial Study Process Questionnaire by Biggs: the Revised SPQ-2f (Biggs et al. 2001), the Short SPQ-3f (Fox et al. 2001) and the N-SPQ-3f (developed by the authors). The results indicate that the Revised SPQ -2f and N-SPQ-3f presented adequate p roperties, whereas the SPQ-3f shows reliability problems. Our results also suggest that there is support to consider the achieving approach as an independent construct (contrariwise to the opinion of Biggs et al., 2001, when developing the R- SPQ-2f). Therefore, in degrees where motivation is mainly external, the use of a 2 factor instrument could result in an incomplete view of the approaches to learning of students.

Bibliographic References

  • ABALDE, E., MUÑOZ, M., BUENDÍA, L. OLMEDO, E., BERROCAL, E., CAJIDE, J., SORIANO, E., HERNÁNDEZ PINA, F., GARCÍA, M.P. AND MAQUILLÓN, J. (2001). Los enfoques de aprendizaje en estudiantes universitarios españoles. Revista de Investigación Educativa, 19(2), 465-489.
  • ARQUERO, J.L., DONOSO, J.A. AND SELTZER, J.C. (2006), Diagnóstico de las causas de motivación en los estudiantes de contabilidad, READICEA: Revista de la Asociación de Profesores de Contaduría y Administración de México, No. 4.
  • ARQUERO, J.L.; FERNÁNDEZ-POLVILLO, C.; HASSALL, T. Y JOYCE, J. (2015),Vocation, motivation and approaches to learning: a comparative study, Education + Training, 57 (1), 13 –30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ET-02-2013-0014
  • BYRNE, M. Y FLOOD, B. (2005), A study of accounting students' motives, expectations and preparedness for higher education, Journal of Further and Higher Education, 29 (2), 111-124.
  • BYRNE, M., FLOOD, B., HASSALL, T., JOYCE, J., ARQUERO, J. L., GONZÁLEZ GONZÁLEZ, J. M. AND TOURNA-GERMANOU, E. (2012), Motivations, expectations and preparedness for higher education: A study of accounting students in Ireland, the UK, Spain and Greece, Accounting Forum, 36 (2), 134-144.
  • BARCA LOZANO, A. (1999). CEPEA. Cuestionario de Evaluación de Procesos de Estudio y Aprendizaje para el alumnado universitario. Manual. A Coruña, Publicaciones de la Revista Galego-Portuguesa de Psicoloxia e Educación.
  • BARCLAY, D., HIGGINS, C. AND THOMPSON, R. (1995). The Partial Least Squares (PLS) Approach to Causal Modelling: Personal Computer Adoption and Use as an Illustration. Technology Studies, Special Issue on Research Methodology, 2(2), 285-309.
  • BHATTACHERJEE, A. AND PREMKUMAR, G. (2004). Understanding changes in belief and attitudes towards information technology usage: A theoretical model and longitudinal test. MIS quarterly, 28(2), 229-254.
  • BIGGS, J.B. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Hawthorn,Vic.: Australian Council for Educational Research. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ET-02-2013-0014
  • BIGGS, J.B., KEMBER, D. AND LEUNG, D. (2001). The revised two-factor Study Process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 133-149.
  • BYRNE, M., FINLAYSON, O., FLOOD, B., LYONS, O. AND WILLIS, P. (2010). A comparison of the learning approaches of accounting and science students at an Irish university. Journal Of Further And Higher Education, 34 (3) 369-383
  • CHAU, P. (1997). Re-examining a model of evaluation information centre success using a structural equation modeling approach. Decision Sciences 28, 309-334.
  • COHEN, L., AND MANION, L. (1990). Métodos de investigación cualitativa. Madrid, Editorial La Muralla.
  • ENTWISTLE, N.J. (1979). Stages. Levels, styles or strategies: dilemmas in the description of thinking. Educational Review, 31, 123-132.
  • ENTWISTLE, N.J., MCCUNE, V. AND HOUNSELL, J. (2002). Approaches to Studying and Perceptions of UniversityTeaching-Learning Environments: Concepts, Measures
  • and Preliminary Findings. Enhacing Teaching-Learning Environments in Undergraduate Courses (ETL projet). Available URL: http://www.etl.tla.ed.ac.uk/publications.html
  • ENTWISTLE, N.J. AND RAMSDEN, K. (1983). Understanding student learning. London: Cromm Helm
  • FORNELL, C. AND LARCKER, D.F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, February, 39-50.
  • FOX, R., MCMANUS, I.C. AND WINDER, B. (2001). The shortened Study Process Questionnaire: An investigation of it structure and longitudinal stability using confirmatory factor analysis. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 511-530.
  • HAIR, J. F. ANDERSON, R. E. TATHAM, R. L. AND BLACK, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (Fifth Edition ed.). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Printice-Hall Inc.
  • HAYES, K. AND RICHARDSON, J.E. (1995), Gender, subject and context as determinants of approaches to studying in higher education, Studies in Higher Education, 20 (2), 215-221.
  • HERNÁNDEZ PINA, F., GARCÍA, M.P. AND MAQUILLÓN, J. (2005). Análisis del cuestionario de procesos de estudio-2 factores de Biggs en estudiantes universitarios españoles. Revista de la Facultad de Ciencias de la Educación, 6, 117-138.
  • JOHNSON, B. AND STEVENS, J.J. (2001). Confirmatory factor analysis of the school level environment questionnaire (SLEQ). International Journal of Learning Envrionments Research, 4(3), 325-344.
  • KEMBER, D., CHARLESWORTH, M., DAVIES, H., MCKAY, J. AND SCOTT, V. (1997). Evaluating the effectiveness of educational innovations: using the study process questionnaire to show that meaningful learning occurs. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 23 (2), 141-157.
  • KEMBER, D., LEUNG, D.Y.P. AND MCNAUGHT, C. (2008), A workshop activity to demonstrate that approaches to learning are influenced by the teaching and learning environment, Active Learning in Higher Education, 9 (1), 43–56.
  • KENNY, D.A. (2012). Measuring Model Fit. Available URL: http://davidakenny.net/cm/fit.htm
  • KYNDT, E., DOCHY, F., STRUYVEN, K. AND CASCALLAR, E. (2011), The direct and indirect effect of motivation for learning on students' approaches to learning through the perceptions of workload and task complexity, Higher Education Research & Development, 30 (2), 135-150.
  • MACCALLUM, R.C., BROWNE, M.W. AND SUGAWARA, H.M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130-149.
  • MARTON, F. AND SÄLJÖ, R. (1976a). On qualitative differences in learning. I-Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4-11.
  • MARTON, F. AND SÄLJÖ, R. (1976b). On qualitative differences in learning. II-Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 115-127.
  • TAIT, H., ENTWISTLE, N.J. AND MCCUNE, V. (1998). ASSIST: A reconceptualisation of the Approaches to Studying Inventory. En Rust, C. (Ed.), Improving Student Learning: Improving Students as Learners. Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development, Oxford.
  • TOOTH, D., TONGE, K., & MCMANUS, I.C. (1989). Anxiety and study methods in preclinical students: Causal relation to examination performance. Medical Education, 23, 416-421.
  • SMITH, S.N. AND MILLER, R.J. (2005), Learning approaches: Examination type, discipline of study and gender, Educational Psychology, 25 (1), 43–53.
  • WERTS, C.E., LINN, R.L. AND JÖRESKOG, K.G. (1974). Interclass Reliability Estimates: Testing Structural Assumptions. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34, 25-33.
  • WIXOM, B. H. AND TODD, P. A. (2005). A theoretical integration of user satisfaction and technology acceptance Information Systems Research, 16 (1), 85-102.
Data source: Dialnet