Truly, Madly, Deeply…
Approaches to Studying in Higher Education
Students
Eunice Simmons
Nia Huws
Nottingham Trent University, School of Animal, Rural and Environmental Science
ARES Background
• 1949 became Nottingham Farm Institute
then Nottinghamshire College of Agriculture
• 1999 became part of NTU, offering a range
of courses across land and environmental
sectors
Student Numbers
School of ARES
2011-12
School of ARES
2012-13
UG
939
975
PGT&R
24
41
All HE
963
1,016
FE
201
214
TOTAL
1,164
1230
ARES Learner Demographics
FE Enrolments are mostly
within 20 miles
HE Enrolments showing a
wider spread
Example of Progression
Animal and Equine Academic Area:
• National Diplomas (FE)
• Animal Management
• Horse Management
• FdSc Degrees
• Animal Studies
• Sports Horse Management and Training
• BSc Degrees
• Animal Biology
• Equine Sports Science
Background and Rationale
• Learners from vocational backgrounds
achieve lower degree outcomes
(Huws and Taylor, 2009; Bailey and Bekhradnia, 2008)
• Approaches to studying affect academic
outcome (e.g. Diseth and Martinsen, 2004)
• Exploring approaches to studying may
provide some information about vocational
learners’ transition to HE
ASSIST
(Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students)
Identifies :
• approaches to learning:
▫ surface
▫ deep
▫ strategic
• preferred teaching and
learning methods:
▫ surface
(transmitting information)
▫ deep
(promoting understanding)
Conceptual mapping of components of effective studying from ASSIST
Deep, strategic approaches to studying,
without surface, apathetic elements
Negative
Deep, strategic
Holist
Serialist
Deep
Relating
ideas
Surface, apathetic
Negative
Strategic
Using
evidence
Time
management
Organised
studying
Surface
Fear of
failure
Routine
memorising
Interest in ideas and
monitoring understanding
Alertness to assessment and
monitoring studying
Syllabus-bound focus on
minimum requirements
Intention to seek meaning
for yourself
Intention to achieve the
highest possible grades
Intention to cope minimally
with course requirements
Previous Findings
• Deep, strategic approaches associated with
higher academic outcomes (e.g. Ward, 2011)
• Surface apathetic approach linked with
lower academic achievement
• Sub factor ‘fear of failure’ linked to attrition
(Entwistle et al , 2000)
Research Questions
• Does learner background affect approach to studying?
• Is this linked to effective transition to HE?
• Can we identify ‘at risk’ learners?
• Can we implement intervention strategies?
 confidence
 retention
 transition to independent learning
• Can we also identify learners that could be challenged
to achieve higher outcomes?
What we did….
• Questionnaire issued to 157 1st Year students
(72 vocational, 85 non -vocational)
• Data analysis
• Learner profiles
established
• Feedback provided to
tutors
What we Found
Learners from vocational backgrounds tend to adopt a more
surface approach (p < 0.01)
Non-vocational
17
Vocational
p < 0.05
15
p < 0.01
13
11
9
7
5
Lack of
Purpose
Unrelated
Memorising
Syllabus- Fear of Failure
Boundness
Surface Approach Sub-factors
Feedback to Tutors / Learners
Dominant
Approach to
Studying
Surface
Apathetic
Preferred
T/ L
Method
Surface
Name
Surface
Apathetic
Surface
Name
Combined
Combined
Name
Combined
Combined
Tending to adopt a surface apathetic approach and show
high fear of failure : likely to need support in making the
High
transition to HE and developing their confidence as
independent learners.
Average Mixed profiles: these learners may benefit from some
support in making the transition to HE and developing
High
their confidence as independent learners.
Name
Combined
Combined
Low
Name
Combined
Combined
Low
Name
Deep Strategic
Combined
Average
Name
Deep Strategic
Deep
Name
Fear of
failure
Comments
High
Combined / mixed approaches. These learners should
cope with the transition to HE but could be encouraged to
develop a more deep, strategic approach.
No issues identified, these learners should cope well with
the transition to HE and could be challenged in their
Average performance targets.
Study Limitations
Implications
• Other factors:
▫ attendance / engagement
▫ academic outcome
• Intervention for ‘at risk’ learners:
▫ formal vs. informal
▫ tutor vs. wider academic support
▫ compulsory vs. voluntary
And Finally….
Any Questions?
Contacts:
Nia Huws: nia.huws@ntu.ac.uk
Eunice Simmons: eunice.simmons@ntu.ac.uk