Learning Approaches of Undergraduate Computer Technology Students: Strategies for Improvement

Authors

  • Suseela Malakolunthu University Malaya, Malaysia
  • Alice Joshua Sunway University, Malaysia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.32890/mjli2012.9.1

Keywords:

Higher education, computer technology, learning approaches

Abstract

Purpose â€“ In recent times, quality of graduates and their performance has been questioned. Students’ performance is an indicator of the kind of approach (deep or surface) that is taken. This study investigates the kind of undergraduates take in their learning processes.
 
Methodology â€“ This quantitative survey used Revised Two-Factor Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F). Sixty-three students participated in the study.
Findings â€“ Results showed no significant difference between the types of approach by gender, nationality, year of study, and major. However, the rank ordering of the mean value indicated that almost all the students who participated in the study did not possess a deep approach to learning. The Pearson’s r analysis revealed a weak negative statistical correlation between the deep and surface approaches to learning and weak positive statistical correlation between surface strategy and deep approach. However, a significant relationship between deep strategy and deep approach (r = .903**, p < .01) was found.
 
Significance â€“ The lack of deep approach to learning among students can be attributed to factors such as the conditions of learning, professional capacity of teachers, and lack of instructional rigor in the program or coursework. It is imperative that emphasis is placed on using deep approaches to learning in the university courses so that deep learning experiences are created for students.

References

Ball, D. L., & Forzani, F. (2009). The work of teaching and the challenge for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(5), 497–511.

Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407.

Biggs, J. B. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Hawthorne, Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research.

Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Biggs, J. B., Kember, D., & Leung, D. (2001). The revised two-factor study process questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 133–149.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (2006). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Dewey, J. J. (1964). The child and the curriculum. In R. Archambault (Ed.), John Dewey on education: Selected writings. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Dornyei, Z. (2000). Motivation in action: Towards a process-oriented conceptualization of student motivation. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 519–538.

Entwistle, N. J. (1987). A model of the teaching-learning process. In J. T. E. Richardson, M. W. Eysenck, & D. Warren Piper (Eds.), Student learning: Research in higher education and cognitive psychology (pp. 13–28). Milton Keynes, UK: SRHE and Open University Press.

Entwistle, N. J. (1991). Approaches to learning and perceptions of the learning environment. Higher Education, 22, 201–204.

Gijbels, D., & Dochy, F. (2006). Student’s assessment preferences and approaches to learning: Can formative assessment make a difference? Educational Studies, 32(4), 399–409.

Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher http://mjli.uum.edu.my/ knowledge and teacher education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capacity: Transforming teaching in every school. New York: Teachers College Press.

Howe, M. J. A. (1999). Genius explained. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Jacobs, P. A., & Newstead, S. (2000). The nature and development of student motivation. British Journal of Education Psychology, 20, 243–254.

Kember, D. (2000). Action learning and action research: Improving the quality of teaching and learning. London, UK: Kogan Page.

Kember, D., Charlesworth, M., Davies, H., McKay, J., & Stott, V. (1994). Evaluating the effectiveness of educational innovations: Using the study process questionnaire to show that meaningful learning occurs, 141-157. Retrieved from http://www.elsevier.com/locate/studeduc

Kember, D., & Gow, L. (1991). A challenge to the anecdotal stereotype of the Asian student. Studies in Higher Education, 16(2), 117–128.

Khoo, H. C. (2001). Graduating into IT industry. Education Quarterly, 19, 14–15.

Koo, Y. L., Pang, V., & Mansur, F. (2006). Employer perception on graduate literacies in higher education in relation to the workplace, 1-16. Retrieved from http://www.esp-world.info/Articles

Kumar, L. R., & Sethuraman, K. R. (2007). Learning approaches in dental and medical students in AIMST: A comparison between deep and surface approaches. International Medical Education Conference.

Ling, P., Arger, G., Filonenko, I., Chua, H., & Yin, C. (2005). Approaches to study: A comparison of Malaysian and Australian students. In Higher education in a changing world, Proceedings of the 28th HERDSA Annual Conference, Sydney, 3-6 July 2005: 276-286.

National Higher Education Research Institute. (2007). University education curricula and workplace literacy. Penang, Malaysia: Universiti Sains Malaysia.

Raadt. D. M, Hamilton. M., & Lister, R. (2005). Approaches to learning in Computer Programming students and their effect on success. HERDSA conference proceedings.

Tan, S. C. (2007). Be more prepared. The Sunday Star. Retrieved from http://thestar.com.my http://mjli.uum.edu.my/

Wilson, K. L., Smart, R. M., & Watson, R. J. (1996).Gender differences in approaches to learning in first-year psychology students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 59-71.

Woo. K. Y. (2006). Malaysian private higher education: A need to study the different interpretations of quality. JASA, Review papers, 17–21.

Zeegers, P. (2001). Student learning in science: A longitudinal study. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 115–132.

Downloads

Published

23-12-2012

Issue

Vol. 9 (2012): Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction (MJLI) Vol. 9, 2012

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Malakolunthu, S., & Joshua, A. (2012). Learning Approaches of Undergraduate Computer Technology Students: Strategies for Improvement. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 9, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.32890/mjli2012.9.1

Research impact

Harvested 2026-09-09
0 citations recorded so far

Counts differ between services because each indexes a different body of literature. None of them is the whole picture.

Identifiers DOI 10.32890/mjli2012.9.1