Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
In developmental research to devise a strategy to identify students who may benefit from assistance with learning habits, approaches to study were explored in undergraduate nursing students (n=122) enrolled in a compulsory first-year course in physiology at a regional Australian university. The course constituted 30 credits (25%) of their first year of study. Using the Approaches and Study Skills Inventory (ASSIST), students were identified as adopting a deep (n = 38, 31%), strategic (n = 30, 25%), or a surface (n = 54, 44%) approach to study. Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha [α]) for deep, strategic, and surface was 0.85, 0.87, and 0.76, respectively. Subsequently, a cluster analysis was done to identify two groupings: a "surface" group (n = 53) and a "deep/strategic" group (n = 69). The surface group scored lower in deep (33.28 ± 6.42) and strategic (39.36 ± 6.79) approaches and higher in the surface (46.96 ± 9.57) approach. Conversely, the deep/strategic group scored 46.10 ± 6.81, 57.17 ± 7.81, and 41.87 ± 6.47 in deep, strategic, and surface styles, respectively. This application of the ASSIST questionnaire and cluster analysis thus differentiated students adopting a surface approach to study. This strategy may enable educators to target resources, for example additional tutorial opportunities, peer-assisted study support, and tutor-led seminar sessions aimed at encouraging students to adopt a less superficial approach to study.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Brown et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: