Published in Higher Education, 31, 97-116

Identifying students at risk through ineffective study strategies

HILARY TAIT & NOEL ENTWISTLE

Centre for Research on Learning and Instruction, University of Edinburgh,

10-12 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh, EH8 9JT.

Abstract. As the proportion of students entering higher education rises, difficulties caused by
inadequate preparation also increase. An ongoing study is developing a computer-based system
to identify students whose study skills and strategies appear to be ineffective, which will also
provide advice to students which is to some extent targeted to their individual needs. This paper
concentrates on the first stages of this project which have involved developing an appropriate
questionnaire and inventory, and ensuring that the inventory is technically sound. This
instrument is a revised version of the Approaches to Studying Inventory, designed to identify
students with weak study strategies. The main part of the project has involved developing a
computer-based package to support both staff and students in improving study skills. It allows
students to complete the inventory on line, and staff to collect data from a whole class and so
identify students who seem to need help with their study skills or strategies. The paper
concludes with a discussion of the rationale underlying the form in which advice is being
provided to students, and a brief description of the ways in which that advice is being structured
and presented to students within a HyperCard system.

Introduction

In Britain, as a higher proportion of young people and increasing numbers of older people enter
higher education, increasing problems occur through study difficulties, drop-out, and failure,
particularly during the first year. Yet it has proved difficult to predict from entry measures the
subsequent academic performance of students (Entwistle & Wilson, 1977). The most accurate
predictive measure of degree results is generally first-year grades, but the highest proportion of
drop-out occurs during the first year. Similarly, the best predictor of failure in the end of year
assessments in the first year are assessments carried out earlier that year. Early warning
schemes are run by some departments and institutions, based on assessments made during the
first term or semester. But for most departments, the task of diagnosing possible sources of
difficulty, where first year classes are large, is beyond the staffing resources available. In any
case, where the problems involve ineffective study skills, few academic staff feel able to give
advice of that kind. There is evidence from a variety of studies that one important reason for
inadequate progress during the first year is the failure to adopt appropriate study skills (see, for
example, Biggs, 1987; Raaheim, Wankowski & Radford,1991).

1
In a recent study carried out in our Centre, teachers were asked about preparation for
undergraduate study. The most frequent response indicated that there was time only to teach to
the required syllabus, and that in any case they were not sufficiently in touch with current
teaching and studying in higher education to provide advice to their pupils (Wall et al., 1991).
In the same study, staff in universities and colleges said that, as their students had qualified for
higher education, they expected them to have adequate study skills already. There was little
evidence that systematic provision of study skills training was at all common in the institutions
surveyed, although some brief initial advice was often provided. A substantial proportion of the
students found what they had been offered inadequate and felt insufficiently prepared for the
types of studying they were asked to undertake. Moreover, weak study skills measured in a
self-report questionnaire were related to poor performance at the end of the first year, both in
this study and in an earlier survey of drop-out from electrical engineering courses (Entwistle et
al., 1989).

There have been a variety of suggestions in the literature about what forms of provision for
study skills support should be provided (see, for example, Weinstein, Goetz & Alexander,
1988). In a recent staff development document, it was argued that institutions should establish
an overall study skills policy which would lay out the responsibilities of institution, faculty, and
department in ensuring that students were adequately prepared for academic study (Entwistle
and Tait, 1992). It was suggested that the institution or faculty should provide an initial
pamphlet which described the main skills and strategies which were needed from the start of the
course. Such pamphlets, however, can have little general benefit. The information provided
has to be discussed by tutors, partly to make it more intelligible, but also to relate general
advice to the specific requirements of the area of study or course. For some students, such
initial advice will take them through the first year, but other students need much more regular
help and more detailed suggestions for particular types of task, like essay-writing or problem-
solving. Such support seems rarely to be offered as a general policy, although individual tutors
will provide it. Sally Brown (in Entwistle, 1994) has also argued for an institutional policy, but
one which also ensures that each new skill which students need throughout a degree course is
taught explicitly to them as it is required.

Experience in British higher education suggests that few institutions or departments have
introduced policies which ensure that students have had adequate preparation even in general
study skills, although the Enterprise in Higher Education Initiative (Elton, 1994) has
encouraged much more emphasis to be put on 'personal transferable skills' which can include
study skills. There seem to be difficulties, in some instances, in persuading academic staff that
study skills training is either needed or possible. And even where they accept the need, many of
them feel they have neither the time nor the knowledge base to provide such training. As a
result, the current situation is still unsatisfactory, on the whole.

2
The expectation that detailed training could be provided for all students on all occasions is,
however, totally unrealistic in the short term, although the increasing emphasis on transferable
skills in curricular design will make staff more aware of the requirements. What, then, could
realistically be provided? In considering this question, it seemed that after the initial
presentation of information and tutorial discussions of general study skills, resources should be
concentrated on those students whose study skills prove inadequate. And that computer-based
advice could then be provided in a way which drew attention to the specific weaknesses which
those students seemed to have. A grant through the British Technology in Teaching and
Learning Initiative (???????, 19??) has enabled this reasoning to be tested in practice.

It was decided that computer technology should be used not only to provide the advice, but also
to help staff to identify students who needed to give special attention to their study skills and
strategies. For many years now, there have been a variety of inventories available through
which students can give self-reports on their ways of studying (see, for example, Biggs, 1993).
These inventories contain a series of scales on which students can be assessed, and there is
accumulating evidence about the levels and combinations of scores which are most likely to
cause concern (Meyer, 1994). Rather few academic staff are currently aware of the existence of
these inventories, and those who have considered using them are often deterred by problems of
collecting the data, and particularly in scoring the inventories and interpreting the scores. It
therefore seemed important, as the first step in our project, to devise a way in which staff could
collect these data more readily, and have them scored and interpreted automatically.

This paper describes the progress which has been made to date, putting its main emphasis on the
initial stages of the project. The first step was to develop a questionnaire and inventory
specifically for the purposes of the project. This development work was critical, as it had to
ensure that ineffective ways of studying were identified through conceptually sound and
psychometrically defensible procedures. Hence, the emphasis on that part of the project in this
paper. In parallel to that work a computer system was being designed through which students
would be able to complete the inventory, and which would allow staff to collect data from a
whole class and so identify students with apparent weaknesses in their ways of studying. The
final section of this paper discusses the rationale being used to offer advice to students and
describes the way that advice is being structured and presented. The advice system is still being
developed but more detailed descriptions of the design and implementation have been published
elsewhere (Entwistle, Tait & Speth, 1994).

Developing the questionnaire and inventory

Initial work

3
There is a wide variety of differing approaches to describing the ways in which students learn
and study. The work undertaken in this project has been based on a set of concepts which have
evolved over a substantial period of time, and which has gradually been extended and refined.
The earliest work was carried out in Aberdeen with scales being constructed which assessed
motivation and study methods (Entwistle & Wilson, 1970). Subsequent work in Lancaster
refined that instrument and reported its use in a large scale survey of universities and colleges
(Entwistle & Wilson, 1977). Reanalysis of those data indicated that two different forms of
motivation could be identified, one which was competitive and self-confident (need for
achievement) and another which involved apprehension about assessment (fear of failure). That
analysis also indicated groups of items describing three forms of ineffective studying -
concentrating too narrowly on the prescribed syllabus (syllabus-boundness), being disorganised
in dilatory in studying, and having cynical and disenchanted attitudes towards the experience of
higher education (Entwistle, 1975).

Developing the 'Approaches to Studying Inventory'

A second large-scale survey at Lancaster allowed further work to be done on the inventory. By
1976, Marton and his colleagues in Gothenburg had introduced the idea of contrasting deep and
surface approaches to learning (Marton & Saljo, 1976, 1984), while Pask had distinguished
between holist and serialist learning strategies with their accompanying pathologies of
globetrotting and improvidence (Pask, 1976, 1988). Moreover, Biggs (1976) had drawn
attention to the possible difference in effects on studying of intrinsic motivation (out of interest
in the subject) and extrinsic or instrumental motivation (directed towards obtaining
qualifications). Bringing together these varying descriptions of different aspects of studying, it
was possible to extend the inventory so that, over 64 items, it covered the sixteen sub-scales
shown in Table 1. This set of sub-scales was called the Approaches to Studying Inventory (ASI)
(Entwistle & Ramsden,1983).
[Table 1 about here]

Factor analyses, based on the responses of over 2000 students who had completed the ASI in a
national survey, identified four main orientations to studying. (Entwistle & Ramsden,1983).
Meaning orientation brought together deep approach (with its two component learning
processes 'relating ideas' and 'use of evidence') and comprehension learning with intrinsic
motivation, while reproducing orientation linked surface approach and improvidence to
syllabus-boundness and fear of failure. The competitive form of motivation was found within
an achieving orientation and was related to a strategic approach to studying which had been
identified through interviews carried out as part of this study (Ramsden, 1981). The final
orientation was described as 'non-academic' and brought together disorganised studying,
globetrotting, and negative attitudes. Across six areas of study, these groupings of scales were
consistently found, with minor variations. In some analyses, for example, a separate

4
motivational factor emerged, but such groupings are essentially irrelevant to the description of
student learning. The position of the two remaining sub-scales was more dependent on the
discipline, with operation learning being part of the meaning orientation in the sciences but
within the reproducing orientation in other areas of study, and extrinsic motivation contributing
to the strategic orientation in professional areas but to reproducing or non-academic groupings
elsewhere.

Identifying students with ineffective study strategies

Strategy for revising the 'Approaches to Studying Inventory''

The ASI was devised as a research instrument to investigate the inter-relationships between the
various concepts which had been used to describe differing aspects of learning and studying in
higher education. For the purposes of the current project, the inventory needed to focus more
directly on identifying students at risk, and in the most parsimonious way possible, both
conceptually and in terms of inventory length. Ideally, the inventory would help to predict
students who were likely to fail during the first year of study. However, poor study methods
and skills are only one reason for failure, and so prediction cannot depend solely on such an
inventory. Moreover, assessment procedures and criteria vary so much from course to course
that general predictors of success are impossible to identify, even in principle. Still, it was
reasonable to expect the set of items included in the inventory to separately and collectively
show an overall relationship with academic performance. The items would also have to provide
sufficient coverage of the main aspects of studying which influence academic progress.

In Britain at least, problems in using an inventory to identify students with study difficulties
arise because staff are often unwilling to set aside more than a small amount of lecture time to
collect such data, and students become bored with responding to long sets of overlapping
questions. We therefore decided to restrict the inventory to a maximum of sixty items, although
some forty items, which could be completed in 10-15 minutes, was considered to be ideal.
There already was evidence that a sub-set of even 18 items provided adequate reliability for
measuring deep and surface approaches to studying (Richardson, 1992). It was, however, not
clear how many other scales would be needed to provide sufficient coverage of effective
studying.

There was also uncertainty about whether the items originally included in the ASI included all
the main defining features of the underlying constructs, as identified in more recent research.
There was also concern that the set of items originally chosen might have omitted some
important aspects of studying. It was therefore decided to examine a range of other inventories,
and also to review the recent research on the concepts underpinning the ASI.

5
Analysis of other inventories

From the wide range of different instruments which have been developed to measure aspects of
study skills and strategies, several which combined thorough conceptualisation with equally
thorough psychometric development were examined. Those chosen were the Study Processes
Questionnaire (SPQ) (Biggs, 1987), the Inventory of Learning Processes (ILP) (Schmeck,
Ribich & Ramanaiah, 1977), the Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI) (Weinstein,
Schulte & Palmer, 1987), and an inventory of study strategies recently described by Janssen
(1992) but available only in Flemish. A comparative listing of their sub-scales is shown in
Table 2.
[Table 2 about here]

The positioning of the scales of the different inventories in Table 2 has been decided by
conceptual considerations and also, where possible, by empirical relationships. The SPQ has
three main factors - deep, surface and achieving - which are conceptually equivalent to the three
strongest factors within the ASI, but with each factor containing both a motive and a strategy
component. The positioning of the scales from the ILP can be justified by correlations between
versions the two inventories given to the same samples (Entwistle & Waterston, 1988; Speth &
Brown, 1988), while the LASSI scales were judged in terms of the relationships established in a
large-scale study reported by Cano-Garcia & Justicia-Justicia (1994). The descriptions of
Janssen's inventory are based on his five factor solutions, although there are currently no
empirical bases for connecting it with the ASI.

Revision of the 'Approaches to Studying Inventory'

Looking across the set of scales in their positions within the four orientations, it was possible to
see some imbalance in the number of sub-scales within the ASI. And in addition to the
examination of the four inventories, modifications to the ASI made by Meyer (1991; Meyer &
Watson, 1991) were also taken into consideration. He had suggested that the surface approach
should contain separate components indicating memorisation and fragmentation, while he saw
'reflection' as an important influence in developing meaning. Even where additional scales
could not be justified in revising the ASI, it was often possible to introduce additional items
which broadened the coverage of aspects of studying within existing or renamed scales. New
labels were introduced mainly to make the meaning of the terms more transparent to non-
specialists, but also to produce comparable features between orientations. For example, each
orientation has distinctive form of motivation associated with it (shown in italics on Table 2),
and each of the three main approaches to studying shows certain study processes associated with
a distinctive intention (although this coincides with motive in the achieving orientation).

Within the meaning orientation, the main concern was to reduce the number of sub-scales and

6
this could readily be achieved. There is some uncertainty within Pask's writing about whether
comprehension learning and operation learning are styles or cognitive processes. In looking at
the items within the ASI, the conceptual similarity was clear between comprehension learning
and relating ideas, and operation learning and use of evidence, although Pask's categories tend
to be more general. With the disappearance of the defining strategies described by Pask, it was
decided also to drop the pathologies.

One weakness in the ASI had been the failure to separate intention from process within the
surface approach. These were therefore separated in the revision, while syllabus-boundness was
broadened into 'passive learning' which, as the opposite of active learning, has been used as a
focus for recent staff-development activities (Denicolo, Hounsell & Entwistle, 1992). The
achieving orientation had to be broadened considerably to take account of the importance of
time management and concentrated effort (within the items only). The non-academic
orientation had lost disorganised studying (reversed and placed within the achieving orientation)
as well as globetrotting, but it seemed worth distinguishing two aspects of the negative attitudes,
lack of interest and lack of direction (which could also be seen as indicating a deficiency in
motivation).

Finally, to parallel self-efficacy, which had been found useful in two of the inventories, a scale
of academic self-confidence was introduced This was intended, however, mainly to serve as an
indicator of academic progress - in other words as a proxy for academic performance rather
than as a predictor of it. The four main groupings were renamed approaches to studying -
deep, surface, strategic and apathetic - which seemed more appropriate after the removal of
Pask's dimensions, and was in keeping with current usage in staff development work (Gibbs,
1994).

Technical aspects of the revised ASI

This development exercise produced fifteen scales of four items each - a 60 item version which
could then be tried out with various samples of first-year students. As with the development of
the original ASI, it was considered important to examine the factor structure within contrasting
areas of study before deciding whether the scales were working effectively. It was not possible
also to look for gender differences in the factor patterns as sample sizes were not sufficiently
high within each course, and any overall grouping confounds area of study with gender. A total
sample of 640 students was drawn from departments of biology, computing, electrical and
mechanical engineering, and psychology. The effectiveness of the items was examined by
looking at the percentage responses (to eliminate any item with too low or too high agreement),
correlations between items and each scale total, correlations between items and end of year
assessment results (to ensure that items were predictive of academic performance, to some
extent at least), and finally maximum likelihood factor patterns were extracted for both items

7
and scale totals. While there were some differences between samples, the majority of these
variations (although not all) could be attributed to sampling variations. Interpretation of minor
differences in factor patterns of opportunity samples is generally inadmissible in our view.

Table 3 reports the four factor pattern (chosen on the basis of the conceptual structure
anticipated) of the scale scores for the whole sample, after rotation to simple structure. (Oblique
rotation is conceptually necessary due to known relationships between component orientations.)
Table 3 also presents the Cronbach alpha coefficients which indicate the homogeneity of items
within the scale - an internal reliability measure. The combination of sub-scales into 'approach'
scores created Cronbach alpha values between 0.77 and 0.83 - reasonable for scales of that
length - but some of the sub-scales contained items which were inadequately homogeneous
within their sub-scale, suggesting that they should not be used as separate variables in
describing differences between students.
[Table 3 about here]

The final step was to reduce the inventory in length as much as possible by removing any items
which could not be justified in terms of the various item analyses carried out. This produced a
44-item inventory which was given to 345 first year students from three different departments
from science and social science specialisms. Further item analyses were carried out, leading to
the removal of two items, while a further two items were dropped to make the three main scales
of equal length. The factor pattern matrix for the remaining 38-items is shown in Table 4 and is
remarkably clear-cut for an analysis at item level. Further work is currently under way to
produce a stand-alone version of the inventory for use as a paper and pencil questionnaire which
will be called ASSIST (Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students).
[Table 4 about here]

This set of items was then accepted as the basis from which the next part of the project could be
develop, but the questionnaire, of which the inventory formed the central core, was extended by
asking questions about prior knowledge and study skills at school, and also by including a series
of items relating to specific study skills, such as taking notes in lectures, essay writing, problem
solving, and so on.

Identifying students with ineffective study skills by computer

A computer package, with the acronym PASS (Personalised Advice on Study Skills), has been
designed as a series of three inter-related shells running on the Apple Macintosh under
HyperCard. The first shell - Questionnaire - allows each student in a class to respond to the
items on line and converts those responses into an individual profile of approaches to studying
and study skills. The second shell - StudentView - takes the data from the questionnaires, scores
them, and plots the 'positions' of students within the three dimensions created by the main

8
approaches to studying. The final package - StudyAdvisor - directs students initially to those
areas of study skills which their self-ratings indicate to be weak, and provides advice at
different levels of detail.

The questionnaire

Questions are presented to students one at a time, and students point to and click on the
appropriate response using the computer's mouse. The HyperCard stack then advances
automatically to the next question, but students can move backwards or forwards manually
using directional arrows to change responses if required. A horizontal bar at the bottom of the
screen fills up as the questionnaire is completed. Figure 1 shows an example of a card from this
program.
[Figure 1 about here]

Once a student has completed the questionnaire, a profile is saved on the computer's desktop.
This is a simple text file which contains the student's scores on each of the three main
dimensions. It also contains a record of the study skills and other influences on studying with
which the student reported experiencing some difficulty. Students are not expected to interpret
this profile for themselves; instead, it is used by the two other shells described below.

StudentView

This package involves an interactive visualisation tool, supported by documentation, which is

intended primarily for teaching staff in academic departments. StudentView takes the responses
to the questionnaire from all students in a class and plots them in a three-dimensional space
which has deep approach, surface approach and strategic approach as its axes. Students'
positions within the plot are determined by considering their inventory scores on these three
dimensions to be co-ordinates. The axes are orientated at 90˚ for simplicity, although this is not
intended to imply particular relationships between the main dimensions, which are likely to
vary between classes. An example of a StudentView plot is shown in Figure 2.
[Figure 2 about here]

Because the plot is interactive, points within the plot can be 'clicked on' and the student's name
or identity number will be revealed in the adjacent scrolling bar. Alternatively, a student from
this list can be highlighted and his or her position in the plot will then be shown. The
questionnaire item responses are combined to create the functions in ways which can be varied
by staff using the system. The default provides functions which describe the main study skills
and other influences on studying that were contained on the questionnaire. Selecting any one of
these from a pull-down menu then indicates, by an 'x' on the plot, those students who reported
having difficulty with that study skill, while a summary statement at the top of the screen

9
displays the number of students falling into this category.

'Comments' can also be produced on screen for any student in the plot. These summarise the
number and nature of all the study areas with which that student had reported having difficulty.
It also suggestions to staff on what type of help might be appropriate. If, for example, the
student appeared to have difficulty with essay writing, one recommended source of help would
be a particular section of the associated piece of software, StudyAdvisor,, described below.
However, where a significant proportion of the class reported experiencing a particular
difficulty, it might suggest the need for widespread advice and help, perhaps in the form of a
workshop, or even that the design of the course itself might need reconsidering. One of the
advantages of StudentView is that it not only provides teaching staff with an overview of the
extent and nature of the difficulties that students in their classes experience, but it also indicates
possible solutions and sources of help.

Since the three-dimensional plot can be rather difficult to interpret with large classes, the
corresponding two-dimensional views can also be obtained. Figure 3 shows such a two-
dimensional StudentView plot.
[Figure 3 about here]

Computer-based advice on study skills

Preliminary discussions with departments participating in this project suggested that knowing
about the nature and extent of student difficulties would still leave unresolved problems. Staff
were concerned that they would have neither the knowledge nor the staffing resources to
provide appropriate help for students. It was therefore decided to develop an interrelated,
though not interdependent, piece of computer software called StudyAdvisor, to provide students
with advice on study skills and strategies. This program is rule-based and has been developed
to be driven by the profile created by students on completion of Questionnaire.

Rationale

There is already a substantial amount of study skills material in circulation but both literature
and conventional training strategies have been criticised as being incoherent, unprincipled, and
largely ineffective. Some of the material appears to give advice which is unrealistic in terms of
the time or resources required, while other advice seems to suggest that there are 'correct' ways
of going about study tasks, without recognising that works well for one student will not be
effective for another (Gibbs, 1985).

At the start of the present project, a survey was carried out of a considerable amount of study
skills materials, both those that were commercially available and those produced 'in-house'

10
within institutions. Much of this advice did lack any underpinning rationale with little
indication that it had drawn on research-based knowledge about student learning in higher
education. In developing advice for StudyAdvisor, it was important to take account of the
criticisms and perceived weaknesses of existing study skills material. The generally accepted
goals of higher education imply that most staff do expect students to come to understand course
content (Entwistle,1994) and so it seemed reasonable to encourage students to use a deep, yet
strategic, approach to studying. This underlying rationale, which also encourages students to be
aware of their own purposes and strategies in studying, serves as a theme running throughout
the tasks and skills in StudyAdvisor. Figure 4 shows the content of specific cards used to give
principled advice on essay writing and problem solving.
[Figure 4 about here]

The structure and content of 'StudyAdvisor'

Students are introduced to some of the main ideas from research on student learning in a
simplified and summarised form. Terms such as 'approach to learning' and 'styles of learning'
are mentioned to provide a more precise vocabulary through which to consider their own
studying and to discuss common difficulties with other students. This introduction also allows
the underpinning theory and rationale for the advice that follows to be made explicit, where it
helps, rather than having to remain merely implicit.

To avoid creating the impression that there are single 'correct' ways of approaching tasks, the
advice in StudyAdvisor points out how studying depends both on the individual student and on
the particular course and area of study. It encourages students to think for themselves what
would be most appropriate way of tackling a task in their own situation. In some cases, it does
this by making a number of concrete suggestions from which students can select some to try,
and in other cases it gives students a list of considerations and asks them to decide the most
appropriate course of action for themselves. A strong sense of the students being in control is
engendered, and students are given hints on the type of information they need from their
departments in order to perform satisfactorily. This strategy is designed to encourage them to
seek out this necessary information where it is not proffered, rather than use the lack of it as an
excuse for poor performance.

The profile which is imported into StudyAdvisor from the Questionnaire is used by the program
to pre-select areas of advice in which the student appears to be having difficulty. The student is
directed first to those areas, although all the advice can be accessed if the student so wishes.
This initial direction is designed to avoid the student being overwhelmed by the sheer number
of cards. Overall, there are currently some 500 cards organised into twelve main areas of
advice, including using resources (such as the library), taking lecture notes, reading, writing
essays, and so on.

11
Biggs (1987) has argued that students will require advice at different levels, starting with simple
hints and building later into detailed, principled explanations. Students who are new to higher
education, or who are experiencing major difficulties, will often need to start from simple hints
and tips, while those who are more experienced or sophisticated in studying will probably
expect more detailed suggestions and explanations. To cater for these various needs, the advice
in StudyAdvisor is arranged as series of linearly linked cards on different levels. The first level
contains basic advice, with more detail being progressively accessed through words in bold type
within the text.

Some research has suggested that students are more likely to accept advice from other students
who have experienced equivalent difficulties, and discovered for themselves how to cope with
them (van Overwalle, Segebarth &Goldschtein, 1989). StudyAdvisor therefore also contains
underlined words can be selected to reveal student quotes relating to the topic on the card.
These quotes appear as 'pop-ups' superimposed on the original card. Each main section of
advice also contains maps of the way the advice is organised, while pictures are used to
illustrate aspects of the advice in some sections. As students progress through the advice, they
can select any cards which they would like to have printed out. After completing their
exploration of the relevant advice, the set of selected cards is then printed in continuous format.

Conclusion

As mentioned above, study skills advice and training has been criticised as being ineffective,
largely because it is so often offered as an adjunct to a course and students have difficulty in
transferring the advice they read into their own context. If this advice is to have maximum
impact, it needs to be presented as an essential part of a course, and to be provided as soon as
the need becomes apparent. This is possible, however, only if teaching staff are themselves
sufficiently familiar with what types of advice are required. That is why, within this project,
considerable emphasis has been put on the responsibilities of institutions, departments, and
individual members of staff for helping students with study skills. Difficulties are, of course,
not just a characteristic of the student, they are a reaction to the course and the teaching
provided. The advice to students can only be fully effective if it matches the specific
experiences of students and if staff repeatedly reinforce the suggestions made by their on
comments and suggestions.

The computer package described in this paper should help staff to identify students who may
need help, but students will need to be encouraged to make use of StudyAdvisor not just once,
but regularly, as different skills are needed. In several places within StudentView and the
supporting documentation, staff are encouraged to think of ways of reinforcing the advice as
they teach, and to remind students of the potential value of improving their study skills. Only

12
then can the advice realistically be expected to make a significant difference to the ways in
which students go about academic tasks.

The final part of our project will involve evaluating the experience of both staff and students in
using package provided. Given the very different situations across institutions and departments,
however, evidence of utility will accumulate only slowly as the existence of the package
becomes known, and ways of using it in departments are explored and reported.
References

Biggs, J.B. (1976). 'Dimensions of study behaviour : Another look at ATI', British Journal
of Educational Psychology 46, 68-80.
Biggs, J.B. (1987). Student Approaches to Learning and Studying. Melbourne: Australian
Council for Educational Research.
Biggs, J.B. (1993). 'What do inventories of students' learning processes really measure? A
theoretical review and clarification',Educational Psychology 63, 3-19.
Cano-Garcia, F.C., and Justicia-Justicia, F.J. (1994). 'Learning strategies, styles and
approaches: an analysis of their interrelationships', Higher Education 27, 239-260.
Denicolo, P., Entwistle, N.J., and Hounsell, D. (1992). What is Active Learning? Module 1 of
Effective Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. Sheffield: Universities' and
Colleges' Staff Development Unit.
Elton, L. (1994). 'EHE - an agent for change', in Knight, P (ed.), University Wide Change,
Staff and Curriculum Development. SEDA Paper 86. Birmingham: Staff Education and
Development Association.
Entwistle, N.J (1975). 'How students learn: information processing, intellectual development
and confrontation', Higher Education Bulletin 3, 129-148.
Entwistle, N.J (1994). Teaching and the Quality of Learning. London: Committee of
Vice-Chancellors and Principals.
Entwistle, N.J., Hounsell, D.J., Macaulay, C., Situnayake, G., and Tait, H. (1989).
The Performance of Electrical Engineers in Scottish Higher Education. University of
Edinburgh: Centre for Research on Learning and Instruction.
Entwistle, N.J., and Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding Student Learning. London: Croom
Helm.
Entwistle, N.J., and Tait, H. (1992). ' Promoting effective study skills'. Module 8, Block A.
of Effective Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. Sheffield: Universities' and
Colleges' Staff Development Unit.
Entwistle, N.J., Tait, H, and Speth, C. (1994). Identifying and Helping Students with Ineffective
Study Skills. Progress report on a TLTP project. University of Edinburgh: Centre for
Research on Learning and Instruction.
Entwistle, N.J., and Waterston, S. (1988). 'Approaches to studying and levels of processing in
university students', British Journal of Educational Psychology,58, 258-265.

13
Entwistle, N.J., and Wilson, J. (1970). ' Personality, study methods and academic performance',
Universities Quarterly 21, 147-166.
Entwistle, N.J., and Wilson, J. (1977). Degrees of Excellence: the Academic Achievement
Game. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
Gibbs, G. (1985). Teaching Students to Learn: a Student Centred Approach. Milton Keynes :
Open University Press.
Gibbs, G. (1994). Improving Student Learning. Oxford Brookes University: Oxford Centre for
Staff Development.
Janssen, P.J. (1992). 'On the construct and nomological validity of student descriptions of
studying and lecturing by means of Likert-type questionnaires: a 3 x 3 matrix of nine
common 'primary' factors', in Carretero, M., Pope, M., Simons, R-J., and Pozo, J. I. (eds.)
Learning and Instruction: European Research in an International Perspective. Volume 3.
Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Marton, F., and Saljo, R. (1976). 'On qualitative differences in learning. I - Outcome and
process, British Journal of Educational Psychology 46, 4-11.
Marton, F., and Saljo, R. (1984). 'Approaches to learning', in Marton, F. , Hounsell, D.J., and
Entwistle, N.J. (eds.), The Experience of Learning Edinburgh : Scottish Academic Press.
Meyer, J.H.F. (1991). 'Study orchestration: the manifestation, interpretation and consequences
of contextualised approaches to learning', Higher Education 22, 297-316.
Meyer, J.H.F. (1994). 'Academically at risk behaviour: a categorisation procedure and an
empirical procedure based on programmable logic',.South African Journal of Higher
Education 8, 000-000..
Meyer, J.H.F., and Parsons, P. (1989). 'Approaches to studying and course perceptions using
the Lancaster inventory - a comparative study', Studies in Higher Education 14, 137-153.
Pask, G. (1976). 'Styles and strategies of learning', British Journal of Educational Psychology
46, 128-148.
Pask, G. (1988). 'Learning strategies, teaching strategies and conceptual or learning style', in
Schmeck, R.R. (ed.), Learning Strategies and Learning Styles. New York: Plenum Press.
Raaheim, K., Wankowski, J., and Radford, J. (1991).Helping Students to Learn at University.
(2nd Edition). Milton Keynes: Open University Press and SRHE.
Ramsden, P. (1981). A Study of the Relationship between Student Learning and its Academic
Context. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Lancaster.
Richardson, J.E. (1992). 'A critical evaluation of the short form of the Approaches to Studying
Inventory', Psychology Teaching Review 1, 34-44.
Schmeck, R.R., Ribich, F.D., and Ramanaiah, N. (1977). 'Development of a self-report
inventory for assessing individual differences in learning processes', Applied
Psychological Measurement 1, 413-431.
Speth C., and Brown R. (1988). 'Study approaches, processes and strategies: are three
perspectives better than one?', British Journal of Educational Psychology 58, 247-257.
TLTP

14
Van Overwalle, F. , Segebarth, K., and Goldschtein, M. (1989) 'Improving performance of
freshmen through attributional testimonies from fellow students', British Journal of
Educational Psychology 59, 75-85.
Wall, D., Macaulay, C., Tait, H., Entwistle, D., and Entwistle, N. (1991). The Transition
from School to Higher Education in Scotland. University of Edinburgh: Centre for
Research on Learning and Instruction.
Weinstein, C-E., Goetz, E.T., and Alexander, P.A. (1988). Learning and Study Strategies .
New York: Academic Press.
Weinstein, C-E., Schulte, A., and Palmer, D. (1987). Learning and Study Strategies Inventory
(LASSI). Clearwater, Flor.: H. & H. Publications.

15
Table 1 Scales within the Approaches to Studying Inventory
(adapted from Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983)

___________________________________________________________________________

Meaning orientation Reproducing orientation

Deep approach (intention) Surface approach

Relating ideas (process) Syllabus-boundness

Comprehension learning

Use of evidence (process) Operation learning Improvidence

Intrinsic motivation Fear of failure

Achieving orientation Non-academic orientation

Strategic approach Disorganised study methods

Achievement motivation Extrinsic motivation Globetrotting

(Instrumental motivation) Negative attitudes

_____________________________________________________________________________

16
Table 3 Factor Pattern Matrix for 60-item Approaches to Studying Inventory
Combined first year sample (N=640)

Factors I II III IV (Cron. .alpha)

Deep Approach (.83)

Intention to understand .71 (.51)
Relating ideas .80 (.60)
Use of evidence .64 (.59)
Active learning .53 (.64)

Surface Approach (.79)

Intention to reproduce .58 (.28)
Unrelated memorising .44 (.60)
Passive learning -.42 .67 (.41)
Fear of failure .68 (.79)

Strategic Approach (.77)

Study organisation .72 (.55)
Time management .77 (.77)
Alertness to assessment demands .38 (.44)
Intention to excel (.??) (.57)

Apathetic Approach (.79)

Lack of direction .47 (.66)
Lack of interest .99 (.68)

Academic Aptitude
Academic self-confidence -.56 (.73)
__________________________________________________________________
Factor intercorrelations Deep Surface Strategic
I II III

Surface II -.24
Strategic III .28 -.09
Apathetic IV -.30 .41 -.27
_____________________________________________________________________________
Maximum likelihood extracted 61.8% of variance; loadings below 0.3 usually omitted.

17
Table 4 Factor pattern matrix for item analysis of 38-item revised inventory
(Items numbered from the 44-item inventory) (N = 345 )

Factors I II III

Deep Approach
D 1 .48
D 6 .48
D16 .53
D23 .54
D29 .59
D32 .63
D35 .62
D38 .57
D41 .60
D44 .52

Surface Approach
S 4 .63
S 7 .59
S 9 .68
S 12 .47
S 21 .74
S 24 .33 .31
S 27 -.31
S 30 .45
S 33 .42
S 39 .61

Strategic Approach
T 3 .32
T 13 .53
T 18 .40
T 22 .70
T 25 .40
T 31 .60
T 34 .36
T 37 .65
T 40 .69
T 43 .70

Apathetic Approach
L14 .35
L19 -.44
L36 -.41
L42 .31 -.40

Academic Self-Confidence
A5 -.47
A10 -.42
A20 -.38

18
A15 -.47

19
Figure 4 An example of principled advice on essay writing

Why? How? What next?

For writing essays, you are expected to use a deep approach. To
do that you need to think why you are doing the essay - think
about what you want to learn from it and the tutor's reason for
setting that particular question. You need to think ahead - to
how and when you are going to do it, how much time you will
need, which books you will need to find. And what next - when
you have finished the essay, decide how well it went and how
you might do it better next time.

Problem solving in higher education

Much of the problem solving in higher education involves

figuring out how to tackle the problem. You have to be familiar
with the underlying principles and concepts.

In other words, problem solving at this level involves a deep

approach to learning. You will have to interact more intensively
and perhaps critically with the course material before you can
hope to solve the related problems successfully.

Surface approaches, like applying procedures blindly or looking

in your notes for a similar example, will not work very
efficiently, and will fail completely when you are given a
different type of problem to do.

20