learning-styles
learning-styles
learning-styles
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
LSRC reference Section 7<br />
page 98/99<br />
Validity<br />
In contrast to claims by Entwistle and his colleagues<br />
about the validity of the ASI, there is less agreement<br />
in external evaluations. For example, in a review<br />
of seven external studies and two by Entwistle and<br />
Ramsden, Richardson found problems with construct<br />
validity for many of the 16 sub-scales and individual<br />
items of the ASI generally. He argued that the ASI<br />
provided a convenient way of characterising students’<br />
approaches to <strong>learning</strong> within different contexts, but an<br />
ongoing problem for researchers had been to retrieve<br />
the original constituent structure of the ASI. Although<br />
factor analyses in both internal and external studies<br />
of the ASI have retrieved the basic distinction between<br />
meaning and reproducing orientations, ‘dimensions<br />
concerning achieving orientation and <strong>styles</strong> and<br />
pathologies have been much less readily identifiable’<br />
(Richardson 1992, 41). He concluded (1997) that<br />
meaning and reproducing orientations constitute a valid<br />
typology of approaches to studying and that there is<br />
evidence of gender and age differences in orientations.<br />
Problems with construct validity in the ASI are<br />
confirmed by Sadler-Smith (1999a), while other<br />
studies question the construct validity of some items<br />
for students of other cultures (see Meyer and Parsons<br />
1989; Kember and Gow 1990). Kember and Gow<br />
argue that the test needs to be more culturally specific<br />
in terms of construct validity. There has also been<br />
disagreement about whether it offers predictive validity<br />
in correlating orientations and final assessment among<br />
18–21-year-old undergraduates (Richardson 1992).<br />
However, Entwistle argues that the inventories were<br />
developed to describe different approaches to studying,<br />
not to predict achievement as such. In addition, the<br />
absence of standardised assessment criteria in<br />
higher education makes predictive validity difficult<br />
to demonstrate (Entwistle 2002).<br />
In response to problems with construct and predictive<br />
validity, Fogarty and Taylor (1997) tested the ASI<br />
with 503 mature, ‘non-traditional’ (ie without entry<br />
qualifications) entrants to Australian universities.<br />
Their study confirmed problems with internal<br />
consistency reliability for seven of the sub-scales,<br />
with alpha coefficients in the range 0.31 to 0.60.<br />
In a similar vein to other studies that advocate a focus<br />
on broad orientations, the authors argued (1997, 328)<br />
that it ‘may be better to concentrate on the meaning<br />
and reproducing orientations rather than on the various<br />
minor scales’. In terms of predictive validity, they<br />
found a negligible correlation between reproduction<br />
orientation and poor academic performance among<br />
their sample, but also a lack of correlation between<br />
a deep approach and good performance. This led them<br />
to argue that students unfamiliar with study may have<br />
appropriate orientations, but lack appropriate study<br />
skills to operationalise them.<br />
Another study (Kember and Gow 1990) explored<br />
relationships between, on the one hand, performance<br />
and persistence; and on the other, approaches<br />
and orientation as measured by the ASI. In a study<br />
of 779 students divided between internal and external<br />
courses, discriminant analysis evaluated which<br />
of the sub-scales could distinguish between those<br />
who persist and those who do not. For both internal<br />
and external students, the surface approach was the<br />
variable that discriminated between non-persisters<br />
and persisters [discriminant coefficients of 0.71<br />
(internal students) and 0.94 (external students)].<br />
The other variable was fear of failure. Persistence was<br />
therefore partly related to fear of failure, while a surface<br />
approach was more likely to lead to dropping out.<br />
In a study of 573 Norwegian undergraduates following<br />
an introductory course in the history of philosophy,<br />
logic and philosophy of science, Diseth (2001)<br />
evaluated the factor structure of the ASSIST. His study<br />
found evidence of the deep and surface approaches,<br />
but was less positive for items about course perception<br />
and assessment demands. In another test with<br />
89 Norwegian psychology students, he found no links<br />
between general intelligence measures and approaches<br />
to <strong>learning</strong>. However, he noted (Diseth 2002) that<br />
straightforward correlations between achievement<br />
and the approaches that students adopt are not<br />
sufficient to predict success in assessment: instead,<br />
a surface approach had a statistically significant<br />
curvilinear link to examination grade: the highest level<br />
of achievement related to a low or moderate surface<br />
approach. The more that students used a surface<br />
approach, the more their achievement declined.<br />
A strategic approach is also associated with high<br />
achievement, suggesting a need to differentiate<br />
between deep and surface approaches to <strong>learning</strong><br />
and a strategic approach to studying (Entwistle and<br />
McCune 2003). This also suggests the need for<br />
lecturers, and students themselves, to be realistic<br />
about the importance of strategic approaches<br />
in students’ responses to teaching and curriculum<br />
and assessment design. For example, the pressures<br />
of ‘credential inflation’ for achieving ever higher grades<br />
and levels of qualification are likely to encourage<br />
strategic approaches.<br />
There has recently been a large upsurge of interest<br />
in describing and measuring the study strategies<br />
of students in higher education. This interest arises<br />
from both political and pedagogical goals: for example,<br />
policy decisions such as the training and certification<br />
of teachers in universities demand empirical evidence<br />
about appropriate pedagogy (see Entwistle and McCune<br />
2003). In addition, current proposals to use student<br />
evaluations of their courses as the basis for league<br />
tables of universities derive heavily from the Course<br />
Perceptions Questionnaire developed for quite different<br />
purposes in the 1980s.