Volume 7 Issue 2 (2018)

The Role of Interest and Enjoyment in Determining Students’ Approach to Learning

pp. 140-150  |  Published Online: May 2018  |  DOI: 10.22521/edupij.2018.72.4

Andrew G Holmes

Abstract

This paper provides information about findings from a recent research project that provides a new insight into how students’ approaches to learning may be impacted by their level of interest in and enjoyment of the topic being studied. The data from this research suggests that for contemporary students, interest and enjoyment play an important role in determining their approach to learning. As such there are implications for all educators who may wish to encourage their students to use a deep approach to learning.

Keywords: approaches to learning, assessment, interest and enjoyment, surface and deep approaches to learning

References

Aiskainen, H., & Gijbels, D. (2017). Do students develop towards more deep approaches to learning during studies? A systematic review of students deep and surface approaches to learning in higher education. Educational Psychology Review, 29(2), 205-234.

Biggs, J. (1987). Student Approaches to Learning and Studying. Burwood, Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research.

Biggs, J. B. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham: Open University Press/Society for Research into Higher Education.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic analysis. In H. Cooper, P. M. Camic, D. L. Long, A. T. Panter, D. Rindskopf, & K. J. Sher (Eds.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol. 2: Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological (pp. 57-71). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful Qualitative Research; a practical guide for beginners. London, Sage.

Case, J. (2007). Alienation and engagement: development of an alternative theoretical framework for understanding student learning. Higher Education, 55(3), 321-332.

Case, J. M., & Marshall, J. D. (2012). Approaches to Learning. In M. Tight, K. H. Mok, J. Huisman, & C. Morphew (Eds.), Routledge International Handbook of Higher Education (pp. xx-xx). London, Routledge.

Crawford, K., Gorden, S., Nichols, J., & Prosser, M. (1998). Qualitatively different experiences of learning mathematics at university. Learning and Instruction, 8(5), 455-468.

Donmoyer, R. (1990). Generalisabiity and the Single-Case Study. In R. Gomm, M. Hammersley & P. Foster (Eds.), Case Study Method (pp. 45-68). London: Sage.

Entwistle, N. (1989). Approaches to studying and course perceptions: the case of the disappearing relationship. Studies in Higher Education, 14(2), 155-161.

Entwistle, N., & Waterson, S. (1988). Approaches to studying and levels of processing in university students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 58(3), 258-266.

Entwistle, N. J. (1988). Styles of Learning and Teaching. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

Entwistle, N. J. (1997). Reconstituting approaches to learning: A response to Webb. Higher Education, 33(2), 213-218.

Entwistle, N. J., & Peterson, E. R. (2004). Conceptions of learning and knowledge in higher education: Relationships with study behaviour and influences of learning environments. International Journal of Educational Research, 41(6), 407-428.

Flyvbjerg, B. (2004). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. In C. Seale, G. Gobo, J. F. Gubrium & D. Silverman (Eds.), Qualitative Research in Practice (pp. 420-434). London: Sage.

Fransson, A. (1977). On qualitative differences in learning. IV - Effects on motivation and test anxiety on process and outcome. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 47(3), 244-257.

Gibbs, G. (1992). Improving the Quality of Student Learning; based on the Improving Student Learning Project funded by the Council for National Academic Awards. Bristol, Technical & Educational Services Ltd.

Gibbs, G. (1994). Improving student learning: theory and practice. Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff Development.

Gibbs, G. (1995). Assessing student centred courses. Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff Learning and Development

Gijbels, D., Van de Watering, G., Dochy, F., & Van den Bossche, P. (2005). The relationship between students' approaches to learning and the assessment of learning outcomes. European Journal of Psychology Education, XX(4), 327-341.

Gow, L., Kember, D., & Cooper, B. (1994). The Teaching Context and Approaches to Study of Accountancy Students. Issues in Accounting Education, 9(1), 118-130.

Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M., & Namey, E. M. (2012). Applied Thematic Analysis. London, Sage.

Haggis, T. (2003). Constructing Images of Ourselves? A Critical Investigation into 'Approaches to Learning' Research in Higher Education. British Education Research Journal, 29(1), 89-104.

Haggis, T. (2004). Meaning, identity and ‘motivation’: expanding what matters in understanding learning in higher education? Studies in Higher Education, 29(3), 335-352.

Harlen, W., & James, M. (1997). Assessment and learning: differences and relationships between formative and summative assessment. Assessment in Education, 4(3), 365-379.

Houghton, W. (2004). Engineering Subject Centre Guide: Learning and Teaching Theory for Engineering Academics. Loughborough: HEA Engineering Subject Centre.

Jackson, B. (1994). Assessment practices in art and design: a contribution to student learning? In G. Gibbs (Ed.), Improving Student Learning: Through Assessment and Evaluation (pp. xx-xx). Oxford: The Oxford Centre for Staff Development.

Joughin, G. (2009). Assessment, Learning and Judgement in Higher Education: A Critical Review. In G. Joughin (Ed.), Assessment, Learning and Judgement in Higher Education (pp. 13-27). Dordrech, Netherlands: Springer.

Laurillard, D. (1979). The Processes of Student Learning. Higher Education, 8(4), 395-409.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Marshall, D., & Case, J. (2005). Approaches to Learning research in higher education: a response to Haggis. British Education Research Journal, 31(2), 257-267.

Marton, F. (1975). What Does it Take to Learn? In N. Entwistle & D. Hounsell (Eds.), How Students Learn (pp. 125-138). Lancaster: University of Lancaster Institute for Research and Development in Post-Compulsory Education.

Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976). On Qualitative Differences in Learning: I-Outcome and Process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46(1), 4-11.

Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (2005). Approaches to Learning. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell & N. Entwistle (Eds.), The experience of learning: implications for teaching and studying in higher education (3rd [Internet] ed.) (pp. 39-58). Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh, Centre for Teaching, Learning and Assessment.

McCune, V., & Entwistle, N. (2011). Cultivating the disposition to understand in 21st century education. Learning and Individual Differences, 21(3), 303-310.

Meyer, J. H. F., & Parsons, P. (1989). Approaches to studying and course perceptions using the Lancaster inventory - a comparative study. Studies in Higher Education, 14(2), 137-153.

Meyer, J. H. F., Parsons, P., & Dunne, T. T. (1990). Individual study orchestrations and their association with learning outcome. Higher Education, 20(1), 67-89.

Otter, S. (1992). Learning Outcomes in Higher Education. London: DfE, UDACE.

Popper, K. R. (1963). Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. London: Routledge & Keagan Paul.

Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to Teach in Higher Education. London: Routledge Falmer.

Richardson, J. (2000). Researching Student Learning. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Richardson, J. T. E. (2005). Students’ Approaches to Learning and Teachers’ Approaches to Teaching in Higher Education. Educational Psychology, 25(6), 673-680.

Richardson, J. T. E. (2007). Mental models of learning in distance education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(2), 253-270.

Ryan, J., & Louie, K. (2007). False Dichotomy? ‘Western’ and ‘Confucian’ concepts of scholarship and learning. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 39(4), 404-417.

Sadlo, G., & Richardson, J. T. E. (2003). Approaches to studying and perceptions of the academic environment in students following problem-based and subject based curricula. Higher Education Research and Development, 22(3), 253-274.

Säljö, R. (1975). Qualitative differences in learning as a function of the learner's conception of a task. Gothenburg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.

Säljö, R. (1979). Learning in the Learner's Perspective. I. Some common-sense conceptions. Reports from the Department of Education. Report 76. Goteborg: University of Goteborg.

Schiefele, U. (1991). Interest, Learning and Motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26(3-4), 299-323.

Struyven, K., Dochy, F., & Janssens, S. (2002, August). Students' perceptions about assessment in higher education: a review. Paper presented at the Joint Northumbria/Earli SIG Assessment and Evaluation Conference; Learning communities and assessment cultures. Newcastle, University of Northumbria.

Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1991). Improving the quality of student learning: the influence of learning context and student approaches to learning on learning outcomes. Higher Education, 22(3), 251-266.

Trow, M. (1973). Problems in the Transition from Elite to Mass Higher Education. Berkeley, CA: Carnegie Commission on Higher Education.

Van Rossum, E. J., Dejkers, R., & Hamer, R. (1985). Students' Learning Conceptions and their Interpretation of Significant Educational Concepts. Higher Education, 14(6), 671-641.

Van Rossum, E. J., & Schenk, S. M. (1984). The relationship between learning conception, study strategy and learning outcome. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 54(1), 73-83.

Webb, G. (1997). Deconstructing deep and surface: Towards a critique of phenomenography. Higher Education, 33(2), 195-212.

Zeegers, P. (2001). Student learning in science. A longitudinal study. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(1), 115-132.

Announcement

COPE Membership

Cope logo. 

Educational Process: International Journal is a member of and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). 

Call for Papers

EDUPIJ is calling for submissions to the Volume 7, Issue 3, 2018. Submission Deadline: August 31, 2018.