Upload
agnes-montalbo
View
221
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/2/2019 Research of Dr. Bernal
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/research-of-dr-bernal 1/36
CHAPTER 1
THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND
Introduction
In June 2009, fourteen (14) out of thirty (30) RTU nursing graduates who took the
licensure exam passed it; that would be a forty-seven (47) percent passing rate for the
College of Nursing. They were the first batch of graduates of the College of Nursing of the
Rizal Technological University.
The College of Nursing aims to develop within the student the knowledge, skills
and attitudes in the professional practice of nursing which include the ability to analyze
and evaluate the practice in context of the local health care system. This research can help
in identifying gaps and measure if the nursing department achieves its aim.
One aim of this research is to determine the learning approach of the nursing
students and if deemed appropriate recommend interventions to promote an effective
approach to teaching and learning for the nursing students.
Since the College of Nursing is at its early stage, there were no measures of its
student’s performance except for the licensure exam. As such, the researchers are
interested in the learning process of the nursing students whether they adopt a deep or
surface approach to learning.
8/2/2019 Research of Dr. Bernal
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/research-of-dr-bernal 2/36
Students having a deep approach to learning have an intrinsic motivation to
learn and to understand the meaning of what is being learned. Students who used a surface
approach concentrated on surface features of the learning tasks such as key words or
phrases. Their strategies are to memorize and to reproduce elements which seemed
appropriate. (Kember, Charlesworth, Davies, McKay, Stott, 2001).
One instrument that could measure the study approach is the Revised Two-Factor
Study Process Questionnaire or the R-SPQ-2F developed by Biggs, Kember and Leung
(2001). It consisted of twenty items using a rating scale of one to five; ten items measured
deep learning and ten items measured surface learning. (Biggs and Kember, 2001 as cited
by Knowles and Kirkman). Within each of these two factors it is possible to distinguish
strategy and motive subscales. Each of the subscales consisted of five items. The final
version of the questionnaire therefore has two main scales, Deep Approach (DA) and
Surface Approach, (SA) with four subscales, Deep Motive (DM), Deep Strategy (DS),
Surface Motive (SM), and Surface Strategy (SS). (Kember, Charlesworth, Davies,
McKay, Stott, 2001).
The R-SPQ-2F was utilized in several studies for nursing students (Tiwari et al.,
2006; Leung, Mok, Wong, 2007) where the researches showed varied results. The R-SPQ-
2F is effective in measuring differences in a problem-based learning but showed negative
results for high quality multiple choice tests.
8/2/2019 Research of Dr. Bernal
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/research-of-dr-bernal 3/36
Theoretical Framework
This study is premised on the theory that students adopting the use of a deep
learning approach is, in general, associated with higher quality learning outcomes and a
surface approach with lower quality learning outcomes. (Gijbels, D., Van de Watering, G.,
Dochy, F., Van de Bossche, 2005)
There are two main influences in the student’s development of a certain learning
approach, personal and the teaching context. On the personal side, some factors in the
students’ background or personality seem to be associated with a Surface Approach
(Biggs, 1989) and others with a Deep Approach. (Biggs, 1987) On the teaching side, time
pressures, examination stress, and using test items that emphasize low level cognitive
outcomes encourage a surface approach. On the other hand, learner activity, student-
student interaction, and interactive teaching, particularly problem-based teaching
encourages a deep approach. (Biggs and Telfer, 1987).
Using the R-SPQ-2F, the researchers would like to explore if the nursing students
are geared toward a deep or surface approach or both. Where students who adopt an
approach that contains elements of both approaches or neither approach tend to fail
university examinations (Meyer, Parsons & Dunne 1990: Entwistle, Meyer & Tait 1991).
They have learning outcomes significantly worse than their colleagues who adopt either a
surface or deep approach.
Also, the interaction between a student and the course structure, curriculum
content and the methods of teaching and assessment shape whether a student will gravitate
toward a surface or deep approach. (Peng and Bettens, 2002)
8/2/2019 Research of Dr. Bernal
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/research-of-dr-bernal 4/36
Statement of the Problem
The study aimed to determine the approach to learning of first year to fourth year nursing
students of Rizal Technological University using the Revised Two- Factor Study Process
Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F).
Specifically, this study sought answer to the following problems.
1. What is the students’ approach to learning according to the following scales by year
level?
The study approaches and subscales are:
1. Deep Approach
Deep Motive
Deep Strategy
2. Surface Approach
Surface Motive
Surface Strategy
2. What is the difference between the study approaches and its subscales and the students’
year level based on the following:
A. Deep Approach
B. Deep Strategy
8/2/2019 Research of Dr. Bernal
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/research-of-dr-bernal 5/36
C. Deep Motive
D. Surface Approach
E. Surface Strategy
F. Surface Motive
3. What is the difference between the deep and surface scale scores of the nursing students
on the following scales?
3.1 Deep Motive vs. Surface Motive
3.2 Deep Strategy vs. Surface Strategy
3.3 Deep Approach vs. Surface Approach
Hypothesis
Ho:Neither one of the four groups in deep and surface scores and subscales are equal.
Ha: At least one of the four groups’ deep and surface scores and subscales are
different from the other three.
Ho: There is no significant difference in the mean scores of deep motive and
surface motive scores for the year level.
Ha: There is a significant difference in the mean scores of deep motive and
surface motive scores for the year level.
Ho: There is no significant difference in the mean scores of deep strategy
surface strategy scores for the year level.
Ha: There is a significant difference in the mean scores of deep strategy and
8/2/2019 Research of Dr. Bernal
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/research-of-dr-bernal 6/36
surface strategy scores for the year level.
Ho: There is no significant difference in the mean scores of deep approach and
surface approach scores for the year level.
Ha: There is a significant difference in the mean scores of deep approach and
surface approach scores for the year level.
Assumptions
It is assumed that the nursing students understand the questionnaire and that there
is no need to translate the questionnaire to Filipino since they will be taking the licensure
exam which is in English. It also assumed that the selection process of the nursing
students is of high standard and the medium of instruction is in English.
Limitations/Delimitations of the Study
The study is limited to the 92 first year to fourth year nursing students of Rizal
Technological University during the school year 2008-2009. Twenty-three (23) students
per year level were selected from the sample of the nursing students who answered the
questionnaire. The instrument used is in English since it is assumed that the selection
process of nursing students is of high standard and it is also assumed that the students will
also take the nursing board exam which is in English and that the medium of instruction is
English. The sampling technique used can be a limitation which will prevent the
researcher from generalizing the results of the study.
Definition of Terms
8/2/2019 Research of Dr. Bernal
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/research-of-dr-bernal 7/36
R-SPQ-2F refers to The Revised Two Factor Study Process Questionnaire
Deep Approach is an approach characterized by students understanding or concentrating
on the meaning of the learning material.
Deep Motive is an approach characterized by students who show interest from within and
often have the initiative to go beyond their syllabus and achieve satisfaction through deep
understanding of a subject.
Deep Strategy is an approach characterized by being task specific and aim at
understanding the meaning of what is being learned; relate the different aspects of the
information with one another or relate to previous learning and personal experience.
Surface Approach is an approach characterized by students having limited interest in a
task and has an extrinsic motive to carry out task for some external achievement.
Surface Motive is an approach characterized by students who tend to learn just enough to
pass and who are afraid of failure due to social pressure.
Surface Strategy is an approach characterized by students who memorize, concentrate on
key words or phrases.
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
8/2/2019 Research of Dr. Bernal
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/research-of-dr-bernal 8/36
Student learning is a challenging process dependent on a number of variables both at the
learners’ or personal, the teaching context (Biggs, 1987) and institution level. (Siddiqui,
2006). Learning approach can be modified either by the changes in the personal situation
of the student, or a change in the teaching situation may modify the learning approach. For
example, the teacher can help the student adjust their learning approach by giving
problem-based assessment rather than those that encourage memorizing. This may in turn
change the students’ motivation, which may change the approach used. This may also
influence the outcome, the teacher’s perception of the students and the student’s own
perception.
Students can adopt neither approach nor both approaches. The deep/surface
distinction seems dichotomous but the distinction between the two approaches is not
absolute. Although memorization is ordinarily associated with surface learning as a
strategy to recall information for assessment purposes it may play a part in both
approaches. (Kember, 1996)
Assessment methods can influence the learning approaches of nursing students.
Assessments designed to assess understanding rather than rote learning can contribute to a
deep learning approach. Multiple-choice questions can be formulated at high cognitive
levels for nursing assessments. (Leung, Mok and Wong, 2006)
The original research which characterized deep and surface approaches was
pioneered by Marton and Säljö (1976) as cited by Kember, Charlesworth, Davies, McKay,
Stott (2001). The categories used to describe approaches to learning were derived from
8/2/2019 Research of Dr. Bernal
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/research-of-dr-bernal 9/36
interviews and observation of students performing normal learning tasks such as reading
academic articles and identified two discrete approaches to reading articles. When
students adopt a deep approach they have an intention to understand the author’s meaning
and linking it to their experiences. Students adopting a deep approach concentrated on the
underlying meaning of an article, with the intent to understand the real message of a piece
of writing or the underlying purpose of an academic task. Learning approaches have a
motivation and a strategy element which are intimately elated. Students attempt to
understand a topic if it is of real interest to them or if they can see its relevance to their
current or future professional roles. On the other hand, a surface approach is associated
with limited interest in a task or an extrinsic motivation. (Kember, Charlesworth, Davies,
McKay, Stott, 2001).
Surface Approach
Surface approach is studying merely for the intention of reproducing information
without any further analysis. Students who memorize terms without understanding the
meaning of the word are an example. Surface and deep approaches relate to rehearsal and
the general cognitive processes of coding. (Phan and Deo, 2006)
According to Tang (1994) of Hong Kong Polytechnic, students adopting a surface
approach have an extrinsic motive to carry out the task for some external achievements
like a high grades or passing the subject other than the present task itself. This approach
aims at avoiding failure but with investing minimum effort.
8/2/2019 Research of Dr. Bernal
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/research-of-dr-bernal 10/36
These students focus on isolated facts and fail to see the relation among the
information. According to Peng and Bettens (2002), surface motivated learners are
encouraged in a society where the rewards for staff that perform are limited by their
education level. Students who are only motivated by extrinsic factors tend to be less
interested in most of the knowledge they learn during their days in the university,
believing that it will not help them in their future career. Thus, these students will tend to
learn just enough to pass, and they are afraid of failure because of social pressures.
Students who use a surface strategy are dependent on the lecturers and expect to
learn everything from them. They are also found to be syllabus bound. Most of these
students avoid disagreement with the lecturers, perhaps as a sign of respect or perhaps
they are afraid that it will affect their grades. (Peng and Bettens, 2002)
Deep Approach
Students showing intrinsic motivation are likely to use the deep approach to
learning. Such students are able to adapt to the ever-changing environment by continuous
learning, helping them to discover as well as to understand new ideas. Satisfaction is often
achieved through deep understanding of a subject. Deep learners are flexible and all
rounded. Thus, it is expected that they are able to excel in almost any field into which they
venture. (Peng and Bettens, 2002)
Students who are engaging in a deep approach have an intrinsic motivation of felt
need based on interest in the task. The strategies thus adopted are task specific and aim at
seeking and understanding the meaning of what is being learned. These students not only
relate the different aspects of the information with one another, but also relate them to
8/2/2019 Research of Dr. Bernal
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/research-of-dr-bernal 11/36
their previous learning and their personal experiences. Deeply motivated learners are
believed to show interest from within and often have the initiative to go beyond their
syllabus to satisfy their thirst for knowledge. (Peng and Bettens, 2002)
According to Laird, (2005), the reason deep learning is important is because
students who use such an approach tend to earn higher grades, and retain, integrate and
transfer information at higher rates. Deep learning is associated with an enjoyable learning
experience while the surface approach tends to be less satisfying.
According to Gijbels et al (2005) although the results seem to be inconsistent, the
use of a deep learning approach is, in general, associated with higher quality learning
outcomes and a surface approach with lower quality learning outcomes (Crawford,
Gordon, Nicholas, & Prosser, 1998; Hazel, Prosser, & Trigwell, 1996; Snelgroove &
Slater, 2003; Trigwell & Prosser, 1991; Van Rossum & Schenk, 1984; Zeegers, 2001).
The result of a study by Tiwari et al (2003) on the effect of problem-based learning
on nursing students resulted that the students adopted a deep approach to learning during
the period of clinical education. Ä description of their clinical education experiences like
motivated to learn; self-direction in learning; active, interactive and student-centered
learning; and enjoyment in learning suggest that they adopted the deep approach.
Students in general, adjust their styles of learning based upon the demands of the
course that they are enrolling in. (Biggs, Kember, & Leung, 2001). In a study by Davidson
(2001) on accounting students on the relationship between performance on complex
8/2/2019 Research of Dr. Bernal
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/research-of-dr-bernal 12/36
examination question and the use of a deep study approach shows that prior academic
achievement, as indicated by cumulative GPA, and motivation for taking the course, as
indicated by students’ plans to seek an accounting job, are the best predictors of
examination performance.
Landbeck and Mugler (1997) conducted a study on tertiary students at University
of South Pacific (USP) and results showed that the students at USP displayed a lower
percentage of higher-order conception of learning resulted from a highly examination
driven curricula as well as lecture-based transmission mode of teaching preferred by
students.
According to Roach (2000) and Ramsden (1992) students who graduate from
universities are unable to form a deep understanding of their field or they do not think like
a professional. The students graduate with only a surface knowledge of their field. It has
been widely accepted that such dispositions are due to expectations, held by students and
lecturers alike, that university learning is quantitative. Qualitative approaches to learning
improve critical thinking skills and understanding of subject material.
A study was conducted by Bernardo in 2003 using the Learning Process
Questionnaire (LPQ) which was the old version of the Study Process Questionnaire.
Bernardo (2003) assessed the learning approach of Filipino students and results showed
that the LPQ was a valid instrument to assess the learning approaches of non low-
achieving Filipino college students. The Deep and Achieving subscales scores of the LPQ
were positively related to academic achievement.
8/2/2019 Research of Dr. Bernal
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/research-of-dr-bernal 13/36
In a study by Stiernborg, Zaldivas & Santiago (1996) where they assessed the
comparative effectiveness of didactic teaching and experiential learning using nursing
students from Manila as participants shows that students in the experiential group has
significantly higher scores than the didactic group. This research was published in
Australia.
Studies on learning approach were conducted in Hong Kong (1998), Singapore
(2002), Australia (2003, 2006), Europe (2005) and Pakistan (2006) with limited researches
on learning approach here in the Philippines most specifically on the learning approach of
nursing students. This is an enough reason to focus the study on the learning approach of
students most especially in the field of nursing since this is one of the sought after course
in our country today.
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research Method
This research adopted the descriptive method since it is used to describe different
aspects of a behavior or psychological phenomena (Wagner, 2008). It involves the
collection of data in order to test the hypothesis or to answer questions concerning the
8/2/2019 Research of Dr. Bernal
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/research-of-dr-bernal 14/36
current status of the subjects of this study.
Population Frame and Sampling Scheme
The sampling used for this study was convenience sampling. A convenience
sample is a group of individuals who (conveniently) are available for study (Fraenkel &
Wallen, 2006). Nursing students who were present and available on the first day of the
second semester of the school year 2008-2009 were administered with the R-SPQ-2F.
From the total population of 503 students enrolled, 182 students took the exam with 88
students coming from the first year, 40 students from the second year, 33 students from
the third year and 23 students from the fourth year. From the sample, 23 students were
randomly selected from first year to third year, with all the 23 students from fourth year
included in the study.
Instrument Used
The researcher used the Revised Two-Factor Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-
2F) developed by Biggs and Kember (2001) which can be employed to measure learning
or teaching. It consisted of twenty items using a rating scale of one to five; ten items
measured deep learning and ten items measured surface learning. (Biggs and Kember,
2001 as cited by Knowles and Kirkman). Within each of these two factors it is possible to
8/2/2019 Research of Dr. Bernal
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/research-of-dr-bernal 15/36
distinguish strategy and motive subscales. Each of the subscales consisted of five items.
The final version of the questionnaire therefore has two main scales, Deep Approach (DA)
and Surface Approach, (SA) with four subscales, Deep Motive (DM), Deep Strategy (DS),
Surface Motive (SM), and Surface Strategy (SS). (Kember, Charlesworth, Davies,
McKay, Stott, 2001).
The range on each category of approach to learning is from 10 to 50, ten questions
with five being the high score on each question. Within each approach, there are sub-
categories of Motive and Strategy, each with five questions. The range in scores for these
is from 5 to 25.
A scoring key was provided by the instrument developer in computing for the
subscales motive and strategy.
The first Study Process Questionnaire (SPQ) consists of 42 items, seven for each
of the sub-scales surface strategy, surface motive, deep strategy, deep motive, achieving
strategy and achieving motive. It contains an achieving approach scale in addition to ones
for deep and surface approaches. The Revised Two-Factor Study Process Questionnaire
was developed to provide a shortened version dealing only with deep and surface
approaches, principally for work on teaching effectiveness and staff development. It can
be administered quickly and easily by a regular teacher, for use in monitoring teaching
contexts. (Kember, Charlesworth, Davies, McKay, Stott, 2001).
Much of the 'approaches to learning' researches have been conducted with higher
education students in Australia and Hong Kong and this kind of measurement is viewed as
a valid and reliable way to assess learning. The study process questionnaire is a valid and
8/2/2019 Research of Dr. Bernal
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/research-of-dr-bernal 16/36
useful tool for nurse teachers to gain knowledge about student nurses' approaches to
learning. (Slater, 2003)
Reliability
Cronbach’s alpha for internal consistency of the twenty items was 0.78. The internal
consistency of the two scales Surface Approach and Deep Approach each having ten items
was 0.77 and 0.66 respectively. The reliability indices for four subscales was also
calculated and are almost identical to the reliability coefficient in earlier study (Biggs,
Kember, Leung, 2001) (Siddiqui, 2006) Table 1.
According to McIver and Carmines (1981) as cited by Gliem and Gliem (2003)
Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient normally ranges between 0 and 1. However, there
is actually no lower limit to the coefficient. The closer Cronbach’s alpha coefficient is to
1.0 the greater the internal consistency of the items in the scale.
Table 1- Reliability Coefficient for the Scales and Subscales
Scales and Subscales Chronbach alpha valueBiggs et. Al.
( 2001)Leung & Chan
( 2001)Siddiqui
( 2006)Current Study
(2008)
Deep Approach (DA) 0.73 0.76 0.75 0.77Deep Motive (DM) 0.62 0.61 0.58 0.48
Deep Strategy (DS) 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.53
Surface Approach (SA) 0.64 0.73 0.73 0.66
Surface Motive (SM) 0.72 0.59 0.59 0.57
Surface Strategy (SS) 0.57 0.58 0.58 0.56
8/2/2019 Research of Dr. Bernal
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/research-of-dr-bernal 17/36
Data Gathering Procedure
The researchers handed the letter of request to the Dean of College of Nursing
regarding the proposal to conduct their study in this college and to utilize the selected
nursing students as respondents of the present study. The R-SPQ-2F was administered to
the nursing students who were present during the first day of second semester of the
school year 2008-2009. The data gathered were tallied and computed using the Tools
Analysis of Microsoft Excel.
Statistical Treatment of Data
To compare the differences among the approaches the One Way Analysis of
Variance (ANOVA) was used. The ANOVA is used to test hypotheses about population
means and used to two or more groups to see if the groups are affected. The F Test was
used to test for the significance of the two types of group (Downie & Heath, 1983). Both
computation utilized the Data Analysis tools of Microsoft Excel.
To compute for the differences among the year level per subscale, the T-Test for
Paired Mean in the Data Analysis tools of Microsoft Excel was used. The mean and
standard deviation was also computed using the Data Analysis tools of Microsoft Excel.
8/2/2019 Research of Dr. Bernal
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/research-of-dr-bernal 18/36
CHAPTER FOUR
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
This chapter deals with the presentation of results, analysis and interpretation of
the profile and competencies of human resource practitioners.
The students approach to learning of the respondents according to the components
of the selected variables is presented in the next table.
Table 2- Mean Scores and Standard Deviation of First Year to Fourth Year Students
on Deep and Surface Approach and its Subscale
8/2/2019 Research of Dr. Bernal
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/research-of-dr-bernal 19/36
Year Level DeepApproach
(DA)
DeepMotive(DM)
DeepStrategy
(DS)
SurfaceApproach
(SA)
SurfaceMotive(SM)
SurfaceStrategy
(SS)
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Freshmen 34.13 6.0 17.91 3.6 16.22 3.2 26.48 5.7 11.78 3.2 14.70 3.8Sophomores 34.48 7.2 18.52 4.2 15.96 3.6 27.13 5.5 12.48 2.7 14.65 3.7Juniors 33.30 5.9 17.35 3.4 15.96 3.1 27.09 5.5 12.13 4.0 14.96 3.1Seniors 34.70 4.9 17.78 2.9 16.91 2.9 25.35 5.5 10.87 2.9 14.48 3.5
Table 2 shows the mean scores for deep and surface approach and their subscales. The
deep approach scores of 34.13 for freshmen; 34.48 for sophomores, 33.30 for juniors and
34.70 for seniors is higher than the surface approach of 16.22, 15.96, 15.96 and 16.91 for
freshmen to seniors respectively. This implies that the nursing students have a deep
approach to learning and is interested in the topic discussed in class. This could be
attributed to the student’s desire to enroll in nursing because they are internally motivated
to learn and be competent in their field.
The sophomore students got the highest surface approach score of 27.13, highest
surface motive scores of 12.48 and a high deep motive score of 18.52 which suggests that
the sophomore students alternately uses the deep and surface motive where they may find
the topics interesting but would like to pass the course while doing as little work as
possible. Where students adopt an approach that contains elements of both approaches or
neither approach, they tend to fail university examinations. (Meyer, Parsons & Dunne
1990: Entwistle, Meyer & Tait 1991), or have learning outcomes significantly worse than
their colleagues who adopt either a surface or deep approach.
The result is similar to the study conducted by Fourie (2003) “…students in their
second year of study are relying more on memorizing than during the first or third year of
8/2/2019 Research of Dr. Bernal
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/research-of-dr-bernal 20/36
study” and “students with a more dominant surface approach to learning are not the
students who will be doing that “extra bit” in their studies.”
The junior students ranked first in the surface strategy subscale with a score of 14.96 and
ranked last in the deep approach with a score of 33.30. This implies that their strategy to
learning is more on memorization and studying only topics that they expect will be in the
exam. This could be attributed with the kind of assessment technique employed by the
professor. According to Kember (1996) as cited by Fourie (2003), “Memorization is
ordinarily associated with surface learning as a strategy to recall information for
assessment purposes that may play a part in both approaches”.
The succeeding presentation tells whether there is a significant difference between the
study approach and the students’ year level.
Table 3- Mean differences between year levels on approaches to study
Scale Source of
Variation
Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
F F crit Interpretation
DeepApproach
BetweenGroups (Year Level)
25.78 3 8.594 0.23 2.71 not significant
WithinGroups
3256.09 88 37.001
Total 3281.87 91DeepStrategy
BetweenGroups (Year
Level)
14.09 3 4.696 0.46 2.71 not significant
WithinGroups
905.65 88 10.292
Total 919.74 91DeepMotive
BetweenGroups (Year Level)
16.22 3 5.406 0.42 2.71 not significant
WithinGroups
1130.70 88 12.849
8/2/2019 Research of Dr. Bernal
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/research-of-dr-bernal 21/36
Total 1146.91 91SurfaceApproach
BetweenGroups (Year Level)
47.60 3 15.866 0.51 2.71 not significant
Within
Groups
2715.39 88 30.857
Total 2762.99 91SurfaceStrategy
BetweenGroups (Year Level)
2.70 3 0.899 0.073 2.71 not significant
WithinGroups
1084.78 88 12.327
Total 1087.48 91SurfaceMotive
BetweenGroups (Year Level)
32.99 3 10.996 1.04 2.71 not significant
WithinGroups 928.87 88 10.555
Total 961.86 91Table 3 shows the ANOVA result for the comparison of the approach and its
subscales per year level. This table shows that the F value of 0.23 for deep approach, 0.46
for deep strategy, 0.42 for deep motive, 0.51 for surface approach, 0.073 for surface
strategy and 1.04 for surface motive is not significant. The null hypothesis is accepted at
0.05 significance level which states that “Neither one of the four groups in deep and
surface approach scores and their subscales are equal”. This implies that year level does
not affect the deep and surface approach scores and their subscales. The homogeneity of
the scores can be attributed to the sampling technique used which is the convenience
sampling. According to Siddiqui (2006), one explanation for no difference can be the
homogeneity of the sample. Other studies suggest that as the year of study increases, the
student also increase their adoption of a surface approach. (Fourie, 2003)
The differences between deep and surface approach and their subscales for all
year level are presented in Table 4.
8/2/2019 Research of Dr. Bernal
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/research-of-dr-bernal 22/36
Table 4- Differences between deep and surface approach and their subscales for all
year level
Scales Computed Value Df Tabular Value Interpretation
Deep Vs Surface Motives Freshmen 6.16 22 2.07 significantSophomores 5.27 22 2.07 significantJuniors 4.33 22 2.07 significantSeniors 8.46 22 2.07 significantDeep Vs Surface Strategies Freshmen 1.69 22 2.07 not significantSophomores 1.86 22 2.07 not significantJuniors 1.91 22 2.07 not significantSeniors 3.10 22 2.07 significantDeep Vs Surface Approach
Freshmen 5.75 22 2.07 significantSophomores 4.77 22 2.07 significantJuniors 4.50 22 2.07 significantSeniors 7.63 22 2.07 significant
p>0.05
Table 4 shows that there is a significant difference between the Deep Motive vs.
Surface Motive of freshmen to senior students. The computed score of 6.16, 5.27, 4.33
and 8.46 is greater than the tabular value of 2.07. Therefore, the alternative hypothesis is
accepted that “there is a significant difference in the mean scores of deep motive and
surface motive scores for the year level”. This implies that the students work hard because
they find their topic interesting and gives them a feeling of deep personal satisfaction. This
can be attributed with the students’ personal desire to pursue nursing as their career
because of the internal motivation or satisfaction they get from studying the course and
also an external motivation to succeed in this career because this course also offers great
amount of money abroad.
According to Peng & Bettens (2002), a high score on Deep Motive subscale
8/2/2019 Research of Dr. Bernal
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/research-of-dr-bernal 23/36
suggests that deeply motivated learners are believed to show interest from within and
often have the initiative to go beyond their syllabus to satisfy their thirst for knowledge.
Kember et.al., (2001) also stated that “students attempt to understand a topic if they can
see its relevance to their current or future professional roles”.
According to McManus and Winder (2001) as cited by Phan (2001), the R-SPQ-2F
is designed to evaluate how students approach learning the topics or courses that are most
important to them. The nursing students may have viewed the topics and their course as
important most especially the senior students who are graduating and needs the motive to
learn in preparation for the licensure exam.
In the Deep vs. Surface Strategies, the computed score of 1.69 for freshmen, 1.86
for sophomore, 1.91 for junior students is less than the tabular value of 2.07 in the 0.05
level of significance, therefore, we accept the null hypothesis that states “There is no
significant difference in the mean scores of Deep Strategy vs. Surface Strategy scores for
the year level”. This implies that the freshmen to junior students’ alternatively uses the
deep and surface strategy in learning, they may try to study topics until they understand
them but they may or only study topics which they think will be in the exam.
With reference to the deep motive vs. surface motive scores of freshmen to junior
students, results suggest that the nursing students are deeply motivated to learn but employ
both the deep and surface strategy in their approach to learning. According to Kember
(1996) as cited by Fourie (2003), “Memorization is ordinarily associated with surface
learning as a strategy to recall information for assessment purposes that may play a part in
8/2/2019 Research of Dr. Bernal
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/research-of-dr-bernal 24/36
both approaches”. The role of the teacher is very critical in this area.
According to Leung, Mok and Wong (2006), “Assessment methods can influence
the learning approaches of nursing students. Assessments designed to assess
understanding rather than rote learning can contribute to a deep learning approach.
Multiple-choice questions can be formulated at high cognitive levels for nursing
assessments”.
According to Meyer, Parsons & Dunne (1990) and Entwistle, Meyer & Tait
(1991), “Where students adopt an approach that contains elements of both approaches or
neither approach, they tend to fail university examinations or have learning outcomes
significantly worse than their colleagues who adopt either a surface or deep approach”.
We would like to see these students as having a deep strategy once they reach their senior
year as is the case of the senior students.
The senior student’s computed value of 3.10 for the Deep Strategy vs. Surface
Strategy is greater than the tabular value of 2.07. in the 0.05 level of significance.
Therefore, we accept the alternative hypothesis that “there is a significant difference in the
mean scores of Deep Strategy and Surface Strategy scores for the year level”.
This implies that the senior students are inclined to spend extra time trying to
obtain information about new topics and they do extra work like looking at the suggested
readings so they can understand the topic better. The senior students work hard, do extra
work and test themselves until they completely understand the topic.
8/2/2019 Research of Dr. Bernal
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/research-of-dr-bernal 25/36
In the Deep vs. Surface Approach, the result of 5.75, 4.77. 4.50 and 7.63 for
freshmen to senior students respectively is greater than the tabular value of 2.07 at the
0.05 level therefore, we accept the alternative hypothesis that :”there is a significant
difference in the mean scores of deep approach and surface approach scores for the year
level”. Nursing students are deeply motivated to learn, and relate the different aspects of
the information with one another, but they also relate them to their previous learning and
their personal experiences. (Tang, 1994)
According to Laird, Shoup & Kuh, (2005) “…on average seniors ‘frequently’
(often or very often) engage in deep approaches to learning”.
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter presents the summary of findings, the conclusions arrived at and
recommendations made in the light of the findings of the study.
This study sought to find out the “Learning Approaches of Nursing Students Using
the Revised Two Factor Study Process Questionnaire”
Specifically it sought to answer the following;
1. What is the students approach to learning according to the following scales by year
level?
1.1 The study approaches are:
Deep Approach
8/2/2019 Research of Dr. Bernal
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/research-of-dr-bernal 26/36
Deep Motive
Deep Strategy
Surface Approach
Surface Motive
Surface Strategy
2. Is there a significant difference between the study approach and the subscales and
students’ year level?
3. Is there a significant difference between the deep and surface scale scores of the nursing
students on the following scales?
3.1.1 Deep Motive vs. Surface Motive
3.1.2 Deep Strategy vs. Surface Strategy
3.1.3 Deep Approach vs. Surface Approach
The population of the study was composed of 92 nursing students. The learning
approaches were categorized as deep or surface with two subscales per category. For deep
approach the subscales were deep motive and deep strategy. For surface approach the
subscales were surface motive and surface strategy. The nursing students were grouped
according to their year level.
The weighted mean was used for analyzing the data on the approach, strategies
and motive of the nursing students. To find out significant difference between the learning
approach and the subscales the ANOVA was used. To test if there is a significant
difference between surface approach vs. deep approach, surface strategy vs. deep strategy
and surface motive vs. deep motive, the t-test for correlated means was used.
8/2/2019 Research of Dr. Bernal
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/research-of-dr-bernal 27/36
All the computations used the Tools Analysis of Microsoft Excel.
Summary of Findings
1. The freshmen to senior nursing students’ learning approach, strategy and motive
were dominantly deep approach.
2. The senior students got the highest mean score of 34.70 in the Deep Approach,
16.91, in the Deep Strategy and got the lowest mean score of 25.35 in the
Surface Approach. The sophomore students got the highest Surface Approach
mean score of 27.13 and high Surface Motive mean score of 12.48 in
comparison with the other year level. The junior students got the highest Surface
Strategy mean score of 14.96, the lowest mean score of 17.35 in Deep Motive
and lowest mean score of 33.30 in Deep Approach.
3. The F value of 0.23 for Deep Approach, 0.46 for Deep Strategy, 0.42 for Deep
Motive, 0.51 for Surface Approach, 0.073 for Surface Strategy and 1.04 for
Surface Motive at 0.05 levels is not significant.
4. The computed score of 6.16 for freshmen, 5.27 for sophomores, 4.33 for juniors
and 8.46 for seniors’ is greater than the tabular value of 2.07 in the 0.05 level of
significance using the t-test for paired mean. Therefore, the alternative
hypothesis is accepted that “there is a significant difference in the mean scores
of Deep Motive and Surface Motive scores for the year level”. The computed
score of 1.69 for freshmen, 1.86 for sophomore, 1.91 for junior students is less
than the tabular value of 2.07 in the 0.05 level of significance, using the t-test for
paired mean Therefore, we accept the null hypothesis that states “There is no
8/2/2019 Research of Dr. Bernal
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/research-of-dr-bernal 28/36
significant difference in the mean scores of Deep Strategy vs. Surface Strategy
scores for the year level”. The senior student’s computed value of 3.10 for the
Deep Strategy vs. Surface Strategy is greater than the tabular value of 2.07 in the
0.05 level of significance using the t-test for paired mean. Therefore, we accept
the alternative hypothesis that “there is a significant difference in the mean
scores of Deep Strategy and Surface Strategy scores for the year level”. The
computed value of 5.75 for freshmen, 4.77 for sophomores, 4.50 for juniors and
7.63 for senior students is greater than the tabular value of 2.07 at the 0.05 level
of significance In the Deep vs. Surface Approach, the result of 5.75, 4.77. 4.50
and 7.63 for freshmen to senior students respectively is greater than the tabular
value of 2.07 at the 0.05 level of significance using the t-test for paired mean.
Therefore, we accept the alternative hypothesis that :”there is a significant
difference in the mean scores of Deep Approach and Surface Approach scores
for the year level”.
CONCLUSION
1. The nursing students predominantly adopt a deep approach to learning especially
the senior students. They show an intrinsic interest in the topic and achieve
satisfaction through deep understanding of the topic.
2. The result of the comparison of the deep and surface approaches and their
subscales shows no significance which could be attributed to the sampling
technique used in the study. The sample is homogenous.
3. The freshmen to junior students’ both uses the deep and surface strategy like
memorization or they may spend extra time trying to obtain information on a
8/2/2019 Research of Dr. Bernal
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/research-of-dr-bernal 29/36
topic but only those given in the class. This could be because of the assessment
technique that emphasizes a quantitative based learning or the method of
teaching applied by the teacher. These students are syllabus bound (Peng and
Bettens, 2002), they would only study topics that they are sure will appear in
their exam. The difference in the score of senior students’ may be due to their
exposure to actual nursing experience in their internship. The test was conducted
in the first day of the second semester of 2008-2009 and the reason not all senior
students participated in the survey is because they were on duty in their
internship. Another reason for the differences in the scores for the Deep and
Surface strategy is the nursing course itself. It is very expensive to enroll in a
nursing course and a failing grade is not the best thing to have, therefore the
students’ strategy to pass is to memorize, because that is what it is expected of
them to pass the subject, real learning is sacrificed. In our culture, a person with
a diploma is highly recognized most especially in the field of nursing and
passing the nursing licensure examination.
Recommendations
1. The deep approach to learning should be promoted by teachers and since the
nursing students’ approach is the deep one, it should be maintained, monitored and
established.
2. It is recommended that a randomized sampling technique be used to be able to
generalize the result to the population.
3. A different method of administering the R-SPQ-2F is by asking students to rate the
learning approach for a particular subject to specifically measure that area or
8/2/2019 Research of Dr. Bernal
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/research-of-dr-bernal 30/36
method of instruction which highly influences the learning approach of the
students. The method of teaching should promote a deep approach to learning by
utilizing experience-based learning or problem-solving learning and less on
memorization or quantitative learning.
4. The R-SPQ-2F can be administered on the first and last day of every semester to
gauge the students’ learning approach and see if they tend towards a deep or
surface approach.
5. The R-SPQ-2F can be administered to all student of RTU to establish norms
among the colleges.
6. A Filipino version of the test can be made to fit low-achievement tertiary students.
7. Variables affecting the approach can be explored for further researches like
correlating the results to the result of the nursing board examination.
8. Results of the study can be utilized by the guidance counselor to identify areas of
students that need improvement and provide programs to encourage students to
apply a deep approach to learning.
9. Other measures of learning can also be used and correlate it with the result of the
R-SPQ-2F.
10. The instrument can also be enhanced to change other items that will best make the
construct clear especially on surface strategy because it has the lowest reliability
coefficient.
8/2/2019 Research of Dr. Bernal
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/research-of-dr-bernal 31/36
Bibliography
Bernardo, A. B. I. (2003). Approaches to learning and academic achievement amongFilipino students. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 164 , 101-114.Davidson, R.A.(2002) Relationship of Study Approach and exam performance. Journal of AccountingEducation. 20, 29-44 Issue 1
Biggs, J., Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y.P. (2001). The revised two-factor Study ProcessQuestionnaire: R-SPQ- 2F. British Journal of Education Psychology, 71, 133-149.
Bray, M., Adamson, B., & Mason, M. (2007) Comparative Education Research:Approaches and Methods. Volume 19 of CERC studies in comparative education. (p.301)
Davidson, R.A. (2002) Relationship of Study Approach and exam performance. Journal of Accounting Education. 20, 29-44 Issue 1
Deo, B. & Phan, H. P. (2006) "Approaches to Learning in Educational psychology andMathematics: A comparative Analysis in the South Pacific Region. AustralianAssociation for Research in Education
Downie, N.M., & Heath, R.W. (1983). Basic Statistics Methods. Harper and Row,
Publisher
Forbes, H. B. (2000) "Beliefs and Learning Approaches of Undergraduate NursingStudents in a Problem-based Learning (PBL) Environment Australian ElectronicJournal of Nursing Education Volume 5. No. 2 march
Fraenkel, J.R & Wallen, N.E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education.McGraw Hill.
8/2/2019 Research of Dr. Bernal
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/research-of-dr-bernal 32/36
Gijbels, D., Van de Watering, G., Dochy, F., Van de Bossche, (2005), The relationship between students' approaches to learning and the assessment of learning outcomes.European Journal of Psychology of Education Vol 20, Version 4, 327-341
Gliem, J.A & Gliem, R.R. (2003) Calculating, Interpreting and reporting Cronbach Alpha
Reliability Coefficient for Likert Scales. Midwest Research to Practice Conference inAdult Continuing and Community Education.
Leung, S.F., Mok, E., & Wong, D. (2008) The impact of assessment methods on theLearning of Nursing students. Nurse Education Today. volume 28. Issue 6, pages 711-719
Mansouri, P.,Soltani, F., Rahermi, S., Nasab, M.M., Ayatollahi, A.R., & Nekooeian, A.A.(2006) Nursing and Midwifery Students' Approaches to Study and Learning. Journalof Advanced Nursing Vol. 54. pp 351-358
Mugler, F. & Landbeck, R (1997) Learning in the South Pacific and Phenomenography
across Culture, Higher Education Research and Development, 16 (2) June, 227-239
Nelson Laird,T.F., Shoup, R., & Kuh, G.D. (2005) Thomas et. Al, "Deep learning andCollege Outcomes: Do fields of study differ" Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the Association for Institutional Research, may 29-June 1, 2005 San Diego, CA
Peng, L.L. & Bettens, R.A.(2002) NUS Students and Biggs' Learning ProcessQuestionnaire CDTL Brief, 5 (7) Access online April 22, 2008
Phan, H. P. Examination of Student Learning approaches, reflective thinking, andepistemological beliefs: A latent variable approach. Electronic Journal of Research in
Educational Psychology, No. 10, Vol4(3), 2006Roach, A. (2000) Qualitative Learning and the SOLO Taxonomy.
Siddiqui, Z. S. (2006) Study Approaches of Students in Pakistan: The Revised to-factor Study Process Questionnaire Experience, Occasional Report 1, December 2006
Snelgrove, S. & Slater, J. (2003) Approaches to Learning: Psychometric testing of a study process questionnaire. Journal of Advance Nursing, 2003, 43, 495-505
Snelgrove, S. (2004) Approaches to Learning of Student nurses. Nurse Education Today,2004, 24, 605-614
Stiernborg M, Zaldivar SB, Santiago EG. (1996) Effect of didactic teaching andexperiential learning on nursing students' AIDS-related knowledge and attitudes. AIDSCare. 1996 Oct; 8(5):601-8.PMID: 8893910
Tang, C. (2008) Effects of Modes of Assessment on Student's Preparation Strategies.Accessed online April 29, 2008
8/2/2019 Research of Dr. Bernal
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/research-of-dr-bernal 33/36
Tiwari, A., et. Al., (2003) The Effects of Problem-based learning on students. Anapproaches to Learning in the context of clinical nursing education. Nurse EducationToday. Volume 26, Issue 5, Pages 430-438
Trigwell, K. & Prosser, M. (1991) Relating approaches to study and the quality of learning
outcomes at the course level, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 61, 265-275
LEARNING APPROACHES OF NURSING STUDENTS OF RIZAL
TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY USING THE REVISED TWO-FACTOR
STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE
A Research Paper
Presented to
The Research and Development Center
Of the Rizal Technological University
In Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the
Research, Extension and Production Services
8/2/2019 Research of Dr. Bernal
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/research-of-dr-bernal 34/36
By
MS. AGNES F. MONTALBO
DR. MERLENE M. BERNAL
APRIL 2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Research Abstract ii
Table of Contents iii
Lists of Tables v
CHAPTER
I THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND
Introduction 1
Theoretical framework 3
Statement of the Problem 4
Hypothesis 5
Assumptions 6
8/2/2019 Research of Dr. Bernal
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/research-of-dr-bernal 35/36
Scope and Delimitation 6
Definition of Terms 7
II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Conceptual Literature 8
III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research Method Used 8
Population Frame and Sampling Scheme 13
Instrument used 13
Data Gathering Procedure 14
Statistical Treatment 16
IV PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
Mean Scores and Standard Deviation of Freshmen to Senior Students on deep and Surface Approach and its Subscales
19
Mean Differences Between Year Levels on Approaches to Study 21
Differences between deep and surface approach and their subscales for all year level
22
V SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Findings 27
8/2/2019 Research of Dr. Bernal
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/research-of-dr-bernal 36/36
Conclusions 29
Recommendations 30
BIBLIOGRAPHY 32
APPENDICES
Appendix A – Survey Permit
Appendix B – The Revised Two Factor Study ProcessQuestionnaire
34
35