Introduction

In Semester I of 2001–2002, the Learning Process Questionnaire (LPQ) (Biggs, 1993) was given to a total of 475 students from three science-based modules, namely GEM1503K Chemistry in Space, FST2102 Chemistry of Food Components, and BL1306 General Biology. At the same time, an earlier version of Biggs’ questionnaire was also given to students studying GEM1503K. The earlier version of Biggs’ questionnaire classifies students based on their motivation and studying strategy while the later edition of LPQ was used to distinguish if NUS students engage in a surface, deep or achieving motivation or strategy. A comparison between U.K. and NUS students’ response to the earlier version of LPQ will be discussed. However, it must be pointed out that the survey of the U.K. students was conducted during the 1970s, so it is not possible to discern whether the differences between the two populations are cultural or due to the 25 years spanning the two groups, or both.

Before discussing the results of our surveys, it is important to understand the meaning of the three different learning styles identified by Biggs—surface, deep and achieving approaches (Biggs, 1987). With surface learning, students aim to satisfy the course requirement (e.g. pass the examination by concentrating on the surface features of the learning task). With deep learning, students try to understand the underlying meaning of the content, for self-development or for the sake of understanding. With achieving learning, students try to attain the highest grade possible. Each approach (called a ‘scale’ of learning) can be measured by two ‘subscales’: motive and strategy (i.e. approach = motive + strategy). Measures of approaches to learning will also measure students’ motivation.

Results and Discussion

LPQ (Biggs, 1993) has been widely used as a tool to measure the inspiration and attitude towards learning in many countries and a variety of cultural backgrounds. It consists of 42 questions, half of which determines students’ strategies to learning while the remaining determines the motivation for learning. There are three strategies to learning and three types of motivation: surface, deep and achieving. Seven questions are dedicated to each type of strategy and motivation. Whilst deep and achieving motivations and strategies appear to be the most desirable in the current social environment, surface motivation and strategy are generally driven by society. The key to success is a balance of all surface, deep and achieving motivations and strategies.

In the first survey, 475 students from three science-based modules (as mentioned above) completed the survey. The students were from a mixture of the arts and sciences streams. The data was analysed according to the categories as described by Biggs (i.e. surface, achieving and deep). For each student, the category with the highest score was given 1 mark. If two categories’ scores were the same, 0.5 marks was given to each category, while if all the categories’ scores were the same, 0.33 marks was given to each category. This means that if a student scored highest in surface motivation, compared to deep and achieving motivation, he was classified as surface motivated. The students’ preferred choices of motivation or strategy are summarised in Table 1 below. A correlation matrix among motivations and strategies, as well as students’ examination results is presented in Table 2. From the survey, it is found that students who are surface motivated are generally realistic and mainly motivated by the final outcome of their effort. The students’ first and foremost objective of pursuing tertiary education is to obtain a degree, which will land them a reasonably comfortable and well-paid job. Indeed, surface motivated learners are encouraged in a society where the rewards for staff that perform are limited by their education level. Many students who participated in the survey are found to be surface motivated (Table 1). This is not surprising because it is generally believed in this society that an individual without a degree will not go far. Students who are only motivated by extrinsic factors tend to be less interested in most of the knowledge they learn during their days in university, believing that it will not help them in their future career. Thus, these students will tend to learn just enough to pass, and be afraid of failure because of social pressures.

Surface motivated students appear to use surface strategies for studying where surface motivation and strategy are positively correlated (Correlation = 0.535, c.f. Table 2). Often, these students who use a surface strategy are dependent on and expect to learn everything from the lecturer. They are also found to be syllabus bound. Most will avoid disagreement with lecturers perhaps as a sign of respect or perhaps they are afraid that it will affect their grades.

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. According to the survey conducted, more than a third of the students are deeply motivated and thus are keen to acquire new knowledge. Of the three subjects for which the survey is conducted, two are essential for most of the students taking the subjects (i.e. General Biology and Chemistry of Food Components). Students from the General Education Module (GEM), Chemistry in Space, are found to be more deeply motivated, which is probably because the subject is not related to their field of study and they have chosen the subject due to interest. Over 40% of the students are found to be deeply motivated.

Students showing intrinsic motivation are likely to use the deep approach to learning (Correlation = 0.605, c.f. Table 2). Such students are able to adapt to the ever-changing environment by continuous learning, helping them to discover as well as 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. More than a third of the students participating in the survey use the deep learning approach to their study.

Achieving motivated students are inspired by good grades. Although many students want to do well in their studies, many find the top grades unattainable. In fact, most students will not sacrifice their popularity or relationship with other students to achieve good grades. Thus, fewer students are achieving motivated according to the survey (Table 1). In institutions of higher learning institutions, students’ aim is normally to graduate with a degree, and if admitted for an honours degree, they tend to aim for a second-class upper and less often a first class. Achieving motivated students are found to use all three different strategies to achieve their objective (Table 2).

Achievers plan and work strategically to realise their objective. They are well organised and consistent with their revision. In addition, in order to achieve good grades, they know the importance of paying attention to important points mentioned during lectures and tend to spot questions for examinations. Mainly, both deeply motivated students and achieving motivated students appear to apply this strategy. This is shown by the positive correlation between achieving strategy with deeply and achieving motivated students (Table 2).

The most surprising result seen in Table 2 is the statistically insignificant correlation to the 99% confidence level between examination scores and all types of motivations and strategies. There is a slight positive correlation, at the 95% level, seen in those adopting an achieving strategy. To us, this seems both good and bad. It appears bad because if we wish to encourage deep learners and achievers, we would like to see a positive correlation with examination marks. In contrast, it appears good because there is no positive correlation between surface learners and marks. However, if we desire to discourage surface learners, we would like to see a negative correlation with marks, although one must wonder if surface learners care about their grades other than that they simply pass. In general, students’ responses to the questions in Biggs’ LPQ depend much on their environment and social influences. Such a conclusion is not new and evidence on the influence of social environment in students’ attitude dates back 40 years (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960). Watkins (1996), who conducted a survey on secondary school students in Hong Kong, showed that social desirability greatly influenced the approaches of students towards learning and may show that students in the region are more inclined to deeper approaches to learning compared to Western countries.

The second survey, based on an earlier Biggs’ questionnaire, had a total of 215 respondents from the GEM1503K Chemistry in Space module. It is important to note that these students are first year, first semester undergraduates, so their responses largely reflect their school education rather than a tertiary education, as well as their expectations of their university education. Furthermore, the questions asked were general, not module specific. The survey was chosen because it was also conducted on 2208 undergraduate U.K. students in the 1970s (Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983). The survey itself consisted of 64 questions and was similar to the more modern Biggs’ LPQ except that many more subcategories were included. Due to space constraints, we will only discuss the statistically significant differences between the two correlation matrices here.

Perhaps as to be expected, the U.K. students exhibited a significant negative correlation between those adopting a deep approach to their learning and those adopting a surface approach. That is, the U.K. students who attempted to understand the material tended not to engage in rote learning. In contrast, local students adopting a deep approach were less extreme. There was no significant correlation found between deep and surface learners. This means that more of our deep learners adopted a surface approach as well and were more extrinsically motivated than the U.K. students. Interestingly, our meaning orientation (deep learners) students were no more fearful of failure than the U.K. students, where in both samples, there was little or no correlation observed between indicators of meaning orientation students and fear of failure.

The correlation between our meaning orientation students and those adopting an achieving orientation were very similar to the U.K. students, with two notable exceptions: (1) Our students adopting a deep approach correlated more positively with a strategic approach than the U.K. students, and (2) intrinsic and achievement motivations in local students were more strongly linked than the U.K. students. There were many significant differences seen in our students who indicated they were disorganised in their study methods. In our sample, we found that first year NUS students were significantly more syllabus bound, afraid of failure, extrinsically motivated, adopted a strategic approach to their study and were more improvident¹ than their 1970’s counterparts in the U.K.

Likewise, there were also many differences between our students and the U.K. students as far as our comprehension learners² are concerned. Of our students using comprehension learning as one method of dealing with material, it was found that they also used the strategic approach more, were more inclined to be syllabus bound, and were more extrinsic and achievement motivated than the U.K. students. Furthermore, our comprehension learners utilised all areas of styles and pathologies, be it improvidence, operational learning³ or globetrotting⁴, unlike their U.K. counterparts.

The final significant differences between our students and the U.K. students were for those who used a strategic approach to learning⁵. Students who were globetrotters and operational learners, and were syllabus bound correlated more strongly with the strategic approach than their U.K. contemporaries.

Conclusion

Perhaps one of the most interesting aspects of the comparative study is the validity of common conceptions held by staff regarding NUS students, at least for this small sample size. For example, it is often thought that NUS students are kiasu, or fear failure, more than Westerners. The results of this survey show that this is simply not true, except in those students who have disorganised study methods. Our students fear failure no more, or less, than the U.K. students. Another conception held is that local students are more extrinsically motivated. This does appear to be true to some extent. More of our meaning orientation students are extrinsically motivated than the U.K. students, where the latter students correlated slightly negatively with extrinsic motivation. However, our achievers and surface learners are just as extrinsically motivated as the U.K. students. Finally, another common conception is that our local students coming straight out of junior colleges are operational learners. Except for those that adopt the strategic approach and comprehension approach to learning, our junior college students are no more operational learners than the 1970’s U.K. students⁶. Based on the results of the Biggs’ LPQ, we would like to suggest that it may be a good idea if lecturers give students this questionnaire, or some modified version, at semester’s end and ask them to respond to the questions in light of the module they have just taken. When the marks finally come in, it would be very instructive for the lecturer to note any correlations between marks and student motivations and strategies. This exercise may provide evidence as to whether a lecturer has/has not achieved their personal learning goals for the students.

References

Biggs, J. (1987). The Study Process Questionnaire (SPQ): Manual. Hawthorn, Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research.

Biggs, J. B. (1993). ‘What do Inventories of Students’ Learning Processes Really Measure?: A Theoretical Review and Clarification’. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 3–19.

Crowne, D.P. & Marlowe, D. (1960). ‘A New Scale of Social Desirability Independent of Psychopathology’. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349–354.

Entwistle, N.J. & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding Student Learning. London: Croom Helm.

Watkins, D. (1996). ‘The Influence of Social Desirability on Learning Process Questionnaires: A Neglected Possibility?’. Contemporary Psychology, 21, 80–82.

Footnotes:

1. Improvident: able to remember facts and details, but unable to fit them together into an overall picture; cannot easily ‘switch tracks’ when working on a problem. Such students prefer to follow each line of thought as far as it will go and remember things best if they concentrate on the order in which the lecturer presented them. Tutors would want them to be more adventurous in making use of their own ideas.

2. Comprehension learners: learners who are often set off on long chains of independent and sometimes only tenuously related thought by ideas in books. In understanding a puzzling idea, they let their imagination wander freely to begin with, even if they do not seem to be much nearer a solution.

3. Operational learning: learning by dealing with each part of a topic or problem in order, working out one at a time; following well tried out approaches to problems rather than anything too adventurous; building up an overall picture of a new topic by beginning with the details; and looking at problems rationally and logically without making intuitive jumps.

4. Globetrotting: ability to have a good general idea of things, but not details; and ability to explain new topics to oneself, but not to others. Globetrotters tend to introduce irrelevant material into essays or tutorials, and jump to conclusions.

5. Strategic approach to learning: a learning approach in which learners listen to lecturers for any hints on what will be in the exam, and then study the emphasised material. When working on a project, learners bear in mind what the lecturer seems to want. If conditions are not right for studying, they are able to change them. They always manage to get hold of the books they need.

6. Note that statement implicitly assumes that most of the GEM1503K students are educated in our junior colleges.