Studies in Higher Education

Vol. 31, No. 5, October 2006, pp. 617636

ISSN 0307-5079 (print)/ISSN 1470-174X (online)/06/05061720
2006 Society for Research into Higher Education
DOI: 10.1080/03075070600923442
The epistemological beliefs, learning
approaches and study orchestrations
of university students
Lourdes Rodrguez and Francisco Cano*
University of Granada, Spain
Taylor and Francis Ltd CSHE_A_192261.sgm 10.1080/03075070600923442 Studies in Higher Education 0307-5079 (print)/1470-174X (online) Original Article 2006 Society for Research into Higher Education 31 5000000October 2006 FranciscoCano fcano@ugr.es
This study examined the learning experience (learning approaches, study orchestrations and
epistemological beliefs) of 388 university students. Data analysis revealed two main results. First,
the different aspects of students learning experience were related: learning approaches and episte-
mological beliefs (two pairs of canonical variates accounted for the significant relationships), and
epistemological beliefs and study orchestrations (sophisticated beliefs emerged mainly in those
participants using deep study orchestrations). Second, study orchestrations, as well as the canonical
variates from epistemological beliefs and learning approaches, predicted students academic
performance. Results suggest that higher education institutions should provide scaffolding to foster
the development of a mature learning experience amongst their students.
Introduction
Those researchers who have examined students learning experience have usually
focused on approaches to learning and study orchestrations (e.g. Meyer, 2000;
Biggs, 2001; Entwistle et al., 2001), and seldom integrated these constructs with
others like students beliefs about learning and knowing (e.g. Schommer, 1993,
1994). This lack of attention is surprising given that the origin of these constructs is
somewhat connected with the pioneering work of Perry (1970). The central tenet of
the present study is that these three constructs are related and linked to academic
performance. What follows is a brief review, which includes the definition of these key
constructs and an exploration of the relationships referred to above.
First accounts of students experiences
Initial research on how students interpreted their educational experiences at university
was conducted by Perry (1970). His longitudinal, phenomenological (using interviews)
*Corresponding author. Departamento de Psicologia Evolutiva y de la Educacion, Universidad de
Granada, Campus Universitario de Cartuja, 18071 Granada, Spain. Email: fcano@ugr.es
618 L. Rodrguez and F. Cano
researches revealed that Harvard and Radcliffe college students ways of viewing
the world (epistemological development) evolved during their studies at university in
terms of complexity and ways of knowing. Students moved from absolutist views of
knowledge (i.e. things are either right or wrong) to a more relativistic stance (i.e.
knowledge is complex and flexible, being correct only in specific contexts).
Originating from this pioneering work, two research perspectives on students
learning emerged: the metacognitive and the phenomenographic (Purdie et al.,
1996). In the former, researchers investigated students epistemological conceptions
or beliefs about knowledge and learning, using a quantitative methodology (Ryan,
1984; Schommer, 1990, 1994). In the latter, researchers analysed the variety of
meanings that learning has for people and the different ways in which they learn,
using a qualitative methodology (Marton & Slj, 1984; Marton et al., 1993). After
these initial qualitative studies of students learning experience, a substantial body of
research was carried out in order to both gain insights and assess, this time in a quan-
titative way (by means of inventories), how students approach and orchestrate their
learning, that is, what they usually do while learning and studying (Marton et al.,
1997). In comparison with the pioneering work carried out in the USA, the studies
carried out within this research perspective have a more relational emphasis, which
recognises that learning approaches are influenced by students perceptions of their
learning environment (Prosser & Trigwell, 1999).
The assessment of students learning experience is a central feature of Harvey and
Greens (1993) conceptualisations of quality in teaching and learning as fit for the
purpose (e.g. to get students to learn effectively) and as transforming (e.g. to change
students views of their world, and also academic staffs conceptions of the teaching
learning process). For higher education institutions, which over recent decades have
been subject to increasing demands for quality assurance in teaching and learning
(Biggs, 2001), one way of assessing the impact of their current practices for reviewing
and enhancing teaching and learning involves knowing both how students approach
and orchestrate their learning, and what beliefs they hold about knowledge and
learning (i.e. whether students are constructing meaning from their educational
experiences and transforming their ways of viewing the world, and of perceiving
knowledge and learning). This assessment is particularly crucial for teacher education
students, who are at the heart of the teachinglearning system, and might reflect these
practices in classroom teaching and learning (Richardson et al., 1991; Pajares, 1992;
Chan, 2003).
Epistemological beliefs
Schommer (1990, 1994) challenged Perrys theoretical stance, submitting that beliefs
are too complex to be captured in a single dimension, and proposed a multidimen-
sional construct which she called epistemological beliefs. These are part of the
underlying mechanism of metacognition, and comprise a system of four more or less
independent beliefs or assumptions about the nature of learning and knowledge.
Schommer (1993) developed the Epistemological Questionnaire (EQ) consisting of
Epistemological beliefs of university students 619
12 subsets of items, and, through factor analysis, identified four dimensions reflecting
beliefs (expressed from a naive perspective) in innate ability, quick learning, simple
knowledge and certain knowledge.
Schommers model (1994) suggests that epistemological beliefs are not inborn,
unchanging characteristics of an individual, but evolve over time, education being
one factor influencing this development, mainly with regard to beliefs about
knowledge. The higher the educational level achieved by adults, the more likely they
are to believe that knowledge is constantly evolving and highly complex (Schommer,
1998). On the other hand, beliefs about learning, the speed and control of learning,
which seem to intimately involve the self, were predicted by the adults home life
(Schommer, 1994, p. 314).
Beyond identifying these four dimensions in personal epistemology, Schommer
also demonstrated how these beliefs may influence comprehension and cognition of
academic tasks, and her work has been the most concerned with classroom learning
(Hofer & Pintrich, 1997, p. 90). Several studies have examined the influence of
epistemological beliefs on academic performance, and results indicate that the former
predict the latter. The less high school students believed in quick learning
(Schommer, 1993; Schommer et al., 1997; Cano, 2005), fixed ability, simple knowl-
edge and certain knowledge (Schommer, 1993; Cano, 2005), the higher their
academic performance.
Although an extensive body of research exists on the epistemological beliefs of high
school students, there is a dearth of research examining these beliefs and, likewise, the
learning approaches and study orchestrations of student teachers. These last two
constructs are central to the research perspective developed in the field of student
learning in higher education, which focuses on describing and assessing students
ways of experiencing and handling learning situations (Entwistle et al., 2001).
Learning approaches
These are strongly related to both students ideas or conceptions of learning and
perceptions of their teachinglearning context, and refer to how students go about
learning, to their learning intentions (motives) and their methods (strategies) (Biggs,
2001). This construct plays a central role as a process between the input (e.g. teaching
context, student factors) and the output (e.g. quality of cognitive learning outcomes)
(Slj, 1982; Marton & Slj, 1984, Van Rossum & Schenk, 1984; Biggs & Moore,
1993). Researchers have identified two contrasting and theoretically opposed learning
approaches: deep and surface (Biggs, 1987a; Entwistle et al., 2001). Students who
deploy a deep approach to learning tend to conceive of learning as transforming infor-
mation, to be intrinsically motivated and to use strategies focusing on the meaning of
the material to be learned. Students who deploy a surface approach tend, on the
contrary, to conceive of learning as reproducing knowledge, to be extrinsically
motivated and to use strategies focusing on the reproduction of those materials.
The original work on learning approaches came from interviews with students, in
a micro-context (naturalistic experiment), while carrying out a specific task (students
620 L. Rodrguez and F. Cano
had to read academic articles and describe their intentions and strategies when
reading the text) (Marton & Slj, 1984). This implies that an approach to learning
is context-specific. However, some years later, further work was carried out in a more
general context to gain insights into what students usually do while learning and
studying, and to design inventories which would assess students readiness to adopt
deep or surface approaches to learning in general (Marton et al., 1997). A number of
questionnaires have been devised to measure learning approaches. In Australia Biggs
(1987b, c) developed the Study Process Questionnaire (SPQ) for university students,
and its secondary school version, the Learning Process Questionnaire (LPQ). In
Britain, Entwistle and Ramsden (1983) developed the Approaches to Studying
Inventory (ASI).
These preferences for adopting particular approaches were referred to by later
authors as predispositions or orientations. The apparent contradiction between
predispositions, which are relatively consistent, and approaches that vary according
to the learning task and content, has no straightforward solution (Case & Gunstone,
2002). However, the stability of the former does not imply fixity, because, as
Ramsden (1988, p. 175) emphasises, they are changeable and responsive to the
context of teaching, evaluations, and curriculum. The term orientation did not
catch on (Biggs, 2001), and researchers generally use the term approach to refer to
the manner in which students go about their learning tasks, as assessed by means of
questionnaires such as the SPQ (Watkins, 2001).
An important aspect of learning approaches is its relationships with metacognition
as conceptualised by Baird (1990, p. 184): the knowledge, awareness and control of
ones own learning. When students learn they play an active role in determining what
they will learn (intention), how they will learn it (strategy), and in allocating mental
resources; indeed learning approaches and metacognition are linked constructs
(Biggs, 1985; Vermunt, 1996; Case & Gunstone, 2002).
It is well documented that students learning approaches are related to a number
of factors, some of which are categorised as personological factors (e.g. a students
perceived self-ability, prior knowledge) and others as contextual (e.g. teaching
learning activities, climate). Generally, deep learning approaches are likely to be
encouraged by interest in and background knowledge of the material to be learned,
a well-planned and well-resourced learning environment, an appropriate workload
and a warm classroom climate (Biggs & Watkins, 1995; Trigwell & Prosser, 1991a,
b; Biggs, 1999; Dart et al., 2000; Watkins, 2001; Lizzio et al., 2002). Since learning
approaches are meaningful in the context of the teachinglearning system, they
give the barometer readings that tell how the general system is working (Biggs,
2001, p. 99).
An important topic of debate amongst researchers is whether students learning
approaches change as a result of their formal educational experiences as they progress
in their studies. Much research has been undertaken on this issue, but the evidence
is inconclusive. While some studies found a decline in the students (secondary and
university) scores with the deep approach to learning (Biggs, 1987b; Gow & Kember,
1990; Biggs & Moore, 1993; Volet et al., 1994; Eklund-Myrskog & Wenestam,
Epistemological beliefs of university students 621
1999), others found the opposite (Watkins & Hattie, 1981; Watkins et al., 1986;
Richardson, 1994; Davis & Sales, 1996). Generally, authors comment that students
probably tend to use less desirable approaches (surface), mainly in tertiary studies, as
they are adapting to the new institutional demands (e.g. heavy curriculum, work pres-
sures, assessment procedures) (Gow & Kember, 1990; Kember, 2000). When these
demands are mitigated, students learning approaches seem to shift towards meaning
and conceptual understanding. Case and Gunstone (2002) restructured an engineer-
ing course with the specific aim of promoting metacognitive development (i.e. the use
of deep approaches), and although it was not easily achieved, the authors pointed out
the supportive role of certain factors such as course design, journal tasks and tests
without time limits. Apparently, only an innovative teachinglearning environment
where educational objectives, teaching methods and assessment procedures are
aligned would maximise the deep approach, as Biggs (2001) hypothesised, or at least
minimise the surface approach and problems with motivation, as Honkimki et al.
(2004) asserted.
The relationship between students learning approaches and academic grades
shows inconsistent results, though it is generally believed that a deep approach/
meaning orientation will contribute positively to learning outcomes (Zeegers, 2001,
p. 118). In a recent meta-analysis based on 55 independent samples with 27,078
respondents from 15 countries, Watkins found average correlations of -.11 and .16
for surface and deep approaches, respectively. However, he recognised that these
relationships assume that higher quality learning outcomes are rewarded by the
assessment system (Watkins, 2001, p. 174).
Study orchestrations
The individual combinations of approaches or orientations may be called orchestra-
tions (Lindblom-Ylnne & Lonka, 1998, p. 4). These are contextualised patterns of
engagement in learning, adopted by individual students or by a group of students, are
sensitive to students perceptions of their learning context as well as to their learning
conceptions, and can display conceptual consonance or conceptual dissonance
(Meyer, 1991; Lindblom-Ylnne & Lonka, 1998; Meyer, 2000). While in the former
there is a theoretically interpretable (typical or congruent) relationship between how
the context and the content of learning are perceived and how learning takes place
(e.g. in terms of inventory response data, a student who combines high surface
approach scores with low deep approach scores), in the latter this relationship is theo-
retically uninterpretable (atypical or maladaptive) (e.g. a student who combines high
deep approach scores with high surface approach scores). The phenomenon of
dissonance exists in small groups of students in a range of contexts (Meyer &
Boulton-Lewis, 2003), and is the focus of increasing interest from researchers and
educational institutions, as is manifested in the special edition of Studies in Higher
Education, vol. 28(1), 2003, devoted to this topic.
Dissonant study orchestrations are associated with a number of factors such as inabil-
ity to self-regulate learning (Lindblom-Ylnne & Lonka, 2000), low metacognitive
622 L. Rodrguez and F. Cano
awareness (Cliff, 2000), and disintegration of relationships, both among learning
approaches and perceptions of learning context (Prosser et al., 2000). While there is
a dearth of research examining the effects of tertiary experience on study orchestrations,
there is a growing body of research identifying significant links between academic
achievement and study orchestrations. Generally, students dissonant orchestrations
are linked to a lower-than-average academic performance (Meyer et al., 1990; Entwistle
et al., 1991; Lindblom-Ylnne & Lonka, 1998; Cliff, 2000).
Interrelationships between epistemological beliefs, learning approaches and study
orchestrations
Although epistemological beliefs and learning approaches are to some degree
connected with Perrys works, very little is known about their interrelationships. In
1981 Perry speculated about the links between epistemological beliefs and ways of
studying, but did not explore them.
Some studies have indicated a relationship between conceptions of knowledge and
conceptions of learning. Davis (1997) found that while students absolutist views of
knowledge corresponded to reproductive learning conceptions, students relativistic
knowledge conceptions were associated with meaning-orientated learning concep-
tions. Buelens et al. (2002) obtained similar results using teaching assistants as partic-
ipants. Recently, Cano and Cardelle-Elawar (2004) demonstrated that secondary
students epistemological beliefs were significantly associated with their conceptions
of learning: the higher students scores on complex and sophisticated beliefs, the
more elaborate and meaning-orientated their conceptions of learning.
If, as has been demonstrated, epistemological beliefs are linked to learning concep-
tions, and the latter associated with learning approaches (Slj, 1982), it would seem
plausible that epistemological beliefs and learning approaches are also linked. Of rele-
vance is that both constructs refer to learning experience in general, and to metacog-
nitive activities in particular (Schommer, 1993; Case & Gunstone, 2002). However,
only a few authors have focused on trying to integrate these constructs.
Two recent studies, by Chan (2003) and Cano (2005), found empirical evidence
of the interrelationships between epistemological beliefs and learning approaches.
Chan (2003), using the EQ and the SPQ, investigated the epistemological beliefs and
learning approaches of 292 teacher education students. Factor analyses revealed a
two-factor structure for the SPQ (surface and deep approaches), similar to that found
by Biggs (1991, 1993), and a four-factor structure for the EQ, where two factors were
similar to those of Schommer (1993)innate/fixed ability and certain knowledge
and two were differentauthority/expert knowledge and learning effort/process.
Correlation analysis revealed that deep approach was negatively associated with
authority/expert knowledge, and positively related to learning effort/process, and that
surface approach was positively correlated with certain knowledge and authority/
expert knowledge. A possible deficiency in this research, that would merit further anal-
ysis, is the statistical technique used, which is perhaps too simple to allow the possible
complexity of the relationship between learning approaches and epistemological
Epistemological beliefs of university students 623
beliefs to emerge. This complexity surely merits exploration using a multivariate
technique (e.g. canonical correlation analysis).
Cano (2005) administered the LPQ and the EQ to 1,600 secondary students and
examined its dimensionality by carrying out exploratory and confirmatory factor anal-
yses. Two factors emerged for the LPQ (deep and surface approaches) and three factors
for the EQ (quick, effortless learning; simple knowledge and certain knowledge). In
order to analyse the relationship between students academic achievement and their
epistemological beliefs and learning approaches, the author proposed a path model,
and this achieved a noteworthy goodness-of-fit to the data. Epistemological beliefs and
learning approaches predicted academic achievement, and were significantly interre-
lated, because the influence of epistemological beliefs on academic performance was
mediated by learning approaches. The effect was statistically significant for the factor
quick effortless learning: the more a student believed that learning occurred quickly
and without effort, the more s/he was likely to use a surface approach, which in turn
was linked negatively to performance. The latter was associated positively with deep
approach, and negatively with naive epistemological beliefs (the more simplistic a
students epistemological beliefs, the poorer his/her academic performance).
In spite of offering an insight into students learning experience, this study omits
some areas worthy of further analysis. Considering that study orchestrations are
associated with learning approaches, as previously indicated, and that a structural
relationship between epistemological beliefs and learning approaches was detected in
the latter study, it can be inferred that study orchestrations are also likely to be related
to epistemological beliefs. Moreoever, if this is true, a question arises: what effect does
each construct have on academic performance?
The aims of the study
The main purpose of the present study was to provide an in-depth analysis of the links
between epistemological beliefs, learning approaches and study orchestrations, and to
examine how these constructs are related to academic performance. More specifically,
the present research addressed four questions:
12. Do any relationships (canonical variates) exist (a) between the set of epistemological
beliefs variables and the set of learning approaches, and (b) between the former and study
orchestrations?
34. To what extent could academic performance be predicted and explained by the possi-
ble canonical variates from each set of variables (epistemological beliefs, and learning
approaches), on the one hand, and by the study orchestrations, on the other hand?
Method
Participants
A total of 388 university students participated in the study, of whom 29.6% were male,
and 70.4% female, their ages ranging from 17 to 40 (M = 21.11; SD = 2.78), with
624 L. Rodrguez and F. Cano
the overwhelming majority (94.3%) between 18 and 25 years of age. All were enrolled
on all of the study modules in either the first or the last year of studies at a teacher
education college, and made up 90% of the total number of students for these courses
and years.
The curriculum of this institution can be described as constructive in terms of its
perspective. Staff stress the importance of designing course objectives explicitly based
on defined levels of understanding (constructive alignment) (Biggs, 2001), and of plan-
ning a coherent teachinglearning environment which allows students to construct
active knowledge related to real-life situations (Entwistle et al., 2001). Furthermore,
teaching resources and forms of assessment reflect this perspective. The former include
a wide variety of interactive sessions, cooperative learning (e.g. group assignments)
and essay writing. The latter focus on conceptual understanding, and include diverse
forms of assignment: written (e.g. journals and proposals) as well as oral and audio-
visual (e.g. group discussions and collaborative presentations and projects).
Materials
The Epistemological Questionnaire (EQ) comprised 12 groups of items consisting of
statements about learning and knowledge that students rated on a Likert-type scale,
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). To ensure the applicability of this
questionnaire to our sample, two types of factor analyses were carried out, exploratory
and confirmatory. The exploratory factor analysis, using the principal-components
method and varimax rotation, revealed the presence of four factors with eigenvalues
greater than one and explained 50.19% of the variance:
Factor I: Belief in Quick learning or not at all (Quick learning);
Factor II: Belief that Knowledge is Unambiguous and Handed down by authority
(Simple Knowledge);
Factor III: Belief that the Ability to learn is unchangeable (Fixed ability); and
Factor IV: Belief in Certain Knowledge (Certain Knowledge).
Inter-item reliabilities for items composing each factor, measured by means of Cron-
bachs Alpha, were .60 for Factor I, .52 for Factor II, .57 for Factor III, and .55 for
Factor IV. The structure largely resembles that obtained by Schommer (1993, 1998);
our second and fourth factors are similar, the only difference being that factors I and
III correspond to factors III and I, respectively, in Schommers results. It is important
to point out that the higher a students scores on these factors, the more naive will be
his/her epistemological beliefs. So, for example, a student who obtains a high score
on fixed ability will believe, in a naive way, that the ability to learn cannot be
improved. A confirmatory factor analysis was also carried out, which provided
reasonably acceptable goodness-of-fit indices:
2
= 112.93, df = 48, p < .001. Good-
ness-of-Fit Index (GFI) = .95; Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit (AGFI) = .92; Root Mean
Square Residual (RMR) = .02.
The Study Process Questionnaire (SPQ) was composed of six subscales with seven
items in each. The students rated these on a five-point Likert-type scale, from 1
Epistemological beliefs of university students 625
(never or rarely true of me) to 5 (always or almost always true of me). The subscales
measured the learning approach dimensions proposed by Biggs (1987c, 1993):
surface motive, surface strategy; deep motive, deep strategy; and achieving motive,
achieving strategy. Only the first four subscales were used in this study since study
orchestrations were being investigated, and it was important to comply with Meyers
(2000) criterion demanding that variation dimensions or factors be theoretical
opposed.
The subscales were subjected to two types of factorial analyses, exploratory and
confirmatory. Exploratory factor analysis, using the principal-components method,
followed by oblique rotation of the factor loading matrix, indicated the presence of
two factors or components with eigenvalues greater than 1, explaining 73% of the vari-
ance. Deep motive subscale and deep strategy subscale loaded on Factor I (Deep).
Surface motive subscale and surface strategy subscale loaded on Factor II (Surface).
Reliability, measured by means of Cronbachs Alpha, was .57 for Factor I and .47 for
Factor II. The two-factor structure is in line with the results submitted by other authors
(Kember & Leung, 1998) and it satisfies the definition of an interference model
mentioned above: two distinct but contrasting dimensions of variation in students
learning (deep-surface). Confirmatory factor analysis of this solution gave acceptable
Goodness-of-Fit indices:
2
= 12.36, df = 1, p < .001. Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI)
= .98., Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) = .85.; Root Mean Square Residual
(RMR) = .05. These results are in line with those submitted by other authors.
Procedure
Participants were made up of those attending courses when the questionnaires, in
whole-class sessions, were administered. All the students agreed to participate volun-
tarily. They were each given a pack containing information about the research, ques-
tionnaires and instructions, as well as assurances regarding the confidentiality of all
data collected. They were asked to answer the EQ and the SPQ , to give their full
name, age and sex, and indicate their agreement by signing a consent form. At the
end of the academic year, students grades for all subjects were noted; their average
mark was used as a measure of academic performance.
Results
Epistemological beliefs, learning approaches, and study orchestrations
The exploratory factor analyses of the EQ and SPQ, mentioned above, were taken as
a starting point to obtain a measure of the three main constructs of this study.
Epistemological beliefs and learning approaches were measured by means of factor
scores (obtained by multiplying the standard scores for the original variables by the
factor score coefficients).
Study orchestrations were identified following Meyers (2000) guidelines. A K-
means cluster analysis of students factor scores on the two-factor model (deep-surface,
626 L. Rodrguez and F. Cano
arising from the exploratory factor analysis of the SPQ subscales) was carried out. As
the 2, 3 and 4 cluster requested solutions showed no notable statistical differences from
each other, for theoretical reasons a 4-cluster solution was chosen. This indicated clear-
cut differences between the patterns of response in factor scores, F(3, 384) = 230.03,
p <.001, and F(3, 384) = 231.23, p <.001, for deep and surface learning approaches
respectively, as set out in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Plot of mean factor scores for each of the four clusters (Study orchestrations)
On the one hand, clusters 1 and 4 included participants showing dissonant orches-
trations, an atypical pattern of response: high scores or low scores on both surface and
deep approaches, that is atypical high-high, and low-low approaches, respectively.
The number of students in the two clusters was 141, this being 36.34% of the total
sample. On the other hand, clusters 2 and 3 included participants presenting conso-
nant orchestrations, a typical pattern of response: deep or surface learning
approaches, respectively. Post hoc comparisons between the means of the two
approaches in the four clusters were carried out using Tukeys test, and all were
significant at p <.01.
Relationship between epistemological beliefs and learning approaches
This relationship was examined using a canonical correlation analysis in which one
set of variables consisted of epistemological beliefs and the other of learning
approaches.
The first canonical correlation was .43 (19% of variance), the second was .31 (10%
of variance). With both canonical correlations included,
2
(8)
= 123.13, p < .001, and
with the first canonical correlation removed,
2
(3)
= 40.88, p < .001. The two pairs
of canonical variates, therefore, accounted for the significant relationships between
-1.6
-1.4
-1.2
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
Deep Surface
Learning approaches
F
a
c
t
o
r

s
c
o
r
e
s
Atypical h-h
Deep
Surface
Atypical l-l
Figure 1. Plot of mean factor scores for each of the four clusters (Study orchestrations)
Epistemological beliefs of university students 627
the two sets of variables, and were saved for later use (F1 is the name assigned to the
first canonical variable in the first set, and F2 to the second; S1 is the name assigned
to the first canonical variable in the second set, and S2 to the second). Data on these
two pairs of canonical variates appears in Table 1.
The total percentage of variance and total redundancy indicate that the first pair of
canonical variates (F1 and S1), as well as the second (F2 and S2), were related to some
degree. Those variables in the beliefs set that correlated closely with the first canonical
variate were Quick learning and Simple knowledge, and to a lesser extent, Certain
knowledge, and in the approaches set, Deep approach, with negative Surface approach
correlating to a lesser extent. Taken as a pair, these variables suggest that those with
immature epistemological beliefs (.39, .74, .24) also tended to deploy a Surface learn-
ing approach (.95) and negative Deep approach (-.28). The second canonical variate
in the beliefs set was composed of negative Simple knowledge (-.91) and to a lesser
extent, negative Quick learning (-.27), while the corresponding canonical variate from
the approaches set was composed of Deep approach (.96) and to a lesser extent, Surface
approach (.28). Taken as a pair, these variables indicate that sophisticated beliefs (in
relative knowledge and gradual learning) correspond to a deep learning approach.
Together the two canonical variates account for 58% of variance (31 plus 27) in
the beliefs set, and 99% of variance in the approaches set (50 plus 49). Together
Table 1. Correlations, standardised canonical coefcients, canonical correlations, percentages of
variance, and redundancies between epistemological beliefs and approaches to learning variables
and their corresponding canonical variates
Canonical variates
First Second
Cor Coef Cor Coef
Beliefs set (F1) (F2)
Quick learning .57 .39 .34 .27
Simple knowledge .22 .16 .94 .91
Fixed ability .87 .74 .11 .09
Certain knowledge .32 .24 .29 .10
% of variance .31 .27 Total = .58
Redundancy .06 .02 Total = .08
Approaches set (S1) (S2)
Deep .28 .27 .95 .96
Surface .96 .95 .27 .28
% of variance .50 .49 Total = .99
Redundancy .09 .05 Total = .14
Can. Correlation .43 .31
Note. Cor = Correlations of canonical variables with original variables. Coef = Standardised canonical variate
coefcients. Can = canonical. F1 and F2 = canonical variates for rst set of variables (CNVRF1 and
CNVRF2). S1 and S2 = canonical variates for second set of variables (CNVRS1 and CNVRS2).
628 L. Rodrguez and F. Cano
the two beliefs variates explain 8% of the variance (6 plus 2) in the approaches
set, while the two approaches variates, taken together, overlap the variance in the
beliefs set by 14%.
Relationship between epistemological beliefs and study orchestrations
This was examined by means of a between-subjects multivariate analysis of variance
(MANOVA) in which study orchestrations were used as the independent variable (IV)
and epistemological beliefs as dependent variables (DVs). The results indicated that
the combined DVs were significantly affected by study orchestrations, F(12, 1008) =
7.28, p <.001, but reflected only a modest association (Wilks = .071). Table 2 shows
the descriptive statistics for the four DVs, their univariate F and their effect sizes.
Participants who deployed a Surface study orchestration scored positively in all
epistemological beliefs. As these were scored inversely, those with higher epistemo-
logical beliefs scores showed more naive beliefs than those with lower scores.
Conversely, participants who orchestrated their study in a Deep way scored nega-
tively in the majority of the epistemological beliefs, so demonstrating more mature or
sophisticated beliefs about knowledge and learning.
After conducting these analyses, our next step was to ascertain possible relation-
ships among the above-mentioned constructs (as IVs) and academic performance (as
DV). Because these constructs were assessed on different scales (approaches/beliefs
on a quantitative scale, and study orchestrations on a nominal scale), two standard,
but separate, multiple regression analyses were carried out to this end, one for
approaches/beliefs, and the other for study orchestrations.
Approaches/beliefs and academic performance
Research question 3 was whether academic performance could be predicted by the
four canonical variates (F1, F2, S1 and S2) that emerged in the analysis of the two
sets of variables: epistemological beliefs and learning approaches. Using the latter as
Table 2. Epistemological beliefs means and standard deviations by study orchestrations, and
results of Univariate F Test
Study orchestrations
Atypical h-h Deep Surface Atypical l-l Anova
Epistemological beliefs M SD M SD M SD M SD F
(3,384)

2
Quick learning .05 .76 .15 .72 .25 .85 .09 .59 6.01* .04
Simple knowledge .39 .70 .02 .78 .17 .72 .20 .72 11.16* .08
Fixed ability .13 .70 .17 .68 .29 .59 .20 .57 13.30* .09
Certain knowledge .19 .69 .07 .68 .01 .62 .11 .44 4.04
*
.03
* p <.001.
Epistemological beliefs of university students 629
IVs and the former as DV, a standard multiple regression was conducted. Table 3
shows the results of this analysis.
All the canonical variates except S2 contributed significantly to the regression
equation. The latter did not correlate with academic performance to a significant level
(r = .05, p = .25). Effect size measured by means of the Herzberg formula (Herzberg,
1969) was 0.7824.
Study orchestrations and academic performance
Research question 4 was whether academic performance could be predicted and
explained by participants study orchestrations. Using the latter as a dummy IV and
the former as DV, a standard multiple dummy-variable regression was conducted.
As study orchestrations is a nominal variable with 4 levels, only 3 (g-1) dummy
variables (Cohen & Cohen, 1983) were created. The results of this analysis are
given in Table 4.
Table 3. Standard multiple regression of canonical variates on academic performance
Correlation matrix Major and additional analyses
Canonical variables DV 1 2 3 b t p sr
2
1. F1 .20 .05 .12 2.19 .03 .011
2. F2 .16 .00 .08 .17 3.27 .00 .025
3. S1 .24 .43 .00 .09 .19 3.56 .00 .029
4. S2 .05 .00 .31 .00 .00 .00 .09 .93 .000
R = .31524. R
2
=.09938. Adj R
2
= .8997. p < .001
Note. F1 and F2 = canonical variates for rst set of variables (CNVRF1 and CNVRF2); S1 and S2 = canonical
variates for second set of variables (CNVRS1 and CNVRS2); = estimated standardised regression coefcient;
sr
2
= squared semipartial correlation; unique variability was .06500 and shared variability was .25024.
Table 4. Standard multiple regression of study orchestrations on academic performance
Correlation matrix Major and additional analyses
DV 1 2 b t p sr
2
1. Atypical h-h .04 .06 .08 1.37 .17 .004
2. Deep .14 .31 .12 .18 3.40 .00 .028
3. Surface .13 .38 .28 .17 .22 4.03 .00 .039
(Atypical l-l) 2.06 78.65 .00
R = .2440. R
2
= .0595. Adj R
2
= .05218. p <.001
Note. = estimated standardised regression coefcient; sr
2
= squared semipartial correlation; unique variability
was .0710 and shared variability was .1730.
630 L. Rodrguez and F. Cano
Study orchestrations predicted academic performance in a statistically significant
way with the proportion of variance of the latter being 5.2%, accounted for in the
sample via R
2
. Effect size measured by means of the Herzberg formula (Herzberg,
1969) was 0.4238.
The sample mean for the reference group (atypical low-low) was 2.0624 (the inter-
cept) and 2.1249 for the atypical high-high study orchestration. As each group added
to the intercept only its own B
i
, Deep study and Surface study orchestrations
academic performance means were 2.1922 (.1298 + 2.0624), and 1.8847 (-.1777 +
2.0624), respectively. While students using Deep study orchestration achieved the
highest academic performance, students deploying Surface study orchestration
achieved the lowest. Moreover, there was a difference between them in that academic
performance was positively related to the former and negatively to the latter.
The t values of Table 4 provide significance tests of the difference between the
reference group mean (Atypical low-low = 2.0624) and the means of each of the other
groups. All these differences except Atypical high-high were statistically significant.
Discussion
The findings of this research lend support to a dual conclusion. First, analysis of the
different components of participants learning experience showed that learning
approaches and epistemological beliefs (two pairs of canonical variates accounted for
the significant relationships) were interrelated, as were epistemological beliefs and
study orchestrations. Second, study orchestrations, as well as the canonical variates
of epistemological beliefs and learning approaches, predicted student teachers
academic performance. Each of these conclusions is discussed in turn.
Relationship between constructs
Epistemological beliefs and learning approaches were not independent but generally
consistent and logically interrelated constructs; the more simplistic and naive the
former, the more superficial and reproduction-oriented the latter, and the more
mature and sophisticated the former, the deeper and more meaning-oriented the
latter. This relationship might be due to the underlying metacognition shared by the
two constructs. Although these results seem to be generally congruent with those
obtained in other research (Chan, 2003; Cano & Cardelle-Elawar, 2004), they
provide further information, showing that not only are the two sets of measures corre-
lated, but also that little overlap exists between them. This could be interpreted as
demonstrating that epistemological beliefs and learning approaches are associated but
distinct elements defining students learning experience, elements for which research-
ers have identified a number of different sources. While epistemological beliefs are
influenced by home, formal education and age (Schommer, 1998), learning
approaches seem to be more relational, since they depend on students perceptions
of their teachinglearning environments (Entwistle et al., 2001). Therefore, although
students experience of learning makes up a whole (Morgan & Beaty, 1997, Marton
Epistemological beliefs of university students 631
et al., 1997), it seems important that any attempt at understanding and/or intervening
in this experience should include reference to its complementary components.
Participants study orchestrations were the third component of learning experience
to be explored. Analyses of these data showed not only consonant or typical patterns
of response, but also dissonant or atypical ones. That around 36% of student teach-
ers, who are receiving formal educational experiences in a potentially constructivist
learning environment, showed dissonant patterns of study orchestration, might be
indicating, as barometer readings, that the institution should insist on promoting
quality assurance as transforming (Harvey & Green, 1993). The advice of experts in
this regard is to proceed in a dually proactive manner: firstly, to continue providing
high-quality teachinglearning environments that can be perceived by students as
contexts encouraging the use of deeper learning approaches (Richardson, 1994; Trig-
well et al., 1999); and secondly, by guaranteeing the necessary scaffolding to facilitate
students (and teachers) in developing sophisticated beliefs about learning and
knowing (Brownlee et al., 2001), which is generally in agreement with Biggss (2001)
criterion that the institution itself needs to be reflective.
As expected, epistemological beliefs and study orchestrations were related to some
extent, though this relationship was clearer in consonant than in dissonant study
orchestrations. In the former, those orchestrating their study in a deep way demon-
strated sophisticated epistemological beliefs, while those using superficial orchestra-
tions demonstrated naive beliefs. In the latter, an amalgam of immature and
sophisticated beliefs was observed, which in a way conforms with Meyers (2000)
assertion that dissonant study orchestrations manifest interferences or violations of
the typical model of contextualised learning. It is interesting to note that these find-
ings extend previous results in the sense that students patterns of engagement in
learning are sensitive not only to their perceptions of their learning context (Meyer,
1991; Lindblom-Ylnne & Lonka, 1998; Meyer, 2000) but to their beliefs about
knowledge and learning.
Two limitations of this study were, however, the exclusive reliance on self-
reporting measures and the restricted origin of participants (coming from only one
university). There is scope for future research to investigate the above-mentioned
relationships, collecting data from different universities and using additional types of
measures (e.g. structured interviews). In spite of these limitations, taken together,
these results show how students ways of going about learning on courses or
programmes are interrelated with the beliefs they hold about learning and knowl-
edge. As these constructs are, in turn, connected to students awareness of their
learning environment (Trigwell et al., 1999; Watkins, 2001), such interrelationships
might be of particular interest to teacher education institutions for one main reason:
it seems plausible that student teachers will reflect in their future academic practice
the different teachinglearning conceptions and practices they are experiencing in
the present (Pajares, 1992). For this reason, various experts insist on working with
academic staff to arouse their sensitivity and alertness towards sophisticated and
high-quality conceptions and styles of teaching and learning (Trigwell et al., 1999;
Entwistle et al., 2001).
632 L. Rodrguez and F. Cano
Learning experience and academic performance
One issue to emerge clearly from this study concerns the links between the constructs
reflecting students learning experience and their learning outcomes. Results were
consistent with those of previous research which suggests that students learning
approaches and epistemological beliefs are predictors of their academic performance
(Schommer, 1993; Schommer et al., 1997; Watkins, 2001; Cano, 2005). Further-
more, they provide additional evidence that the variates accounting for the interrela-
tionships between these two sets of variables, although exhibiting small effect sizes,
were significant predictors of academic performance, the only exception being S2.
This could be explained by this latter variate appearing to be poorly defined. It
showed a notable loading in only one of the epistemological beliefs factors (negative
Simple knowledge), being minimal in the other three.
In addition, participants study orchestrations were associated with their academic
performance, in line with previous research (Meyer et al., 1990; Entwistle et al., 1991;
Lindblom-Ylnne & Lonka, 1998; Cliff, 2000). Although the effect size was small, it
was evident that those participants using Deep study orchestrations received the high-
est scores, those using Surface study orchestrations the lowest, and those demonstrat-
ing dissonant study orchestrations scoring between these two extremes. As some
authors point out (Entwistle et al., 1991; Lindblom-Ylnne & Lonka, 2000; Meyer,
2000; Prosser et al., 2000), dissonant study orchestrations are linked to disintegrated
relationships between learners perceptions of their learning environment and their
learning approaches, and to poor learning outcomes. An issue that might merit
consideration for further research would be to analyse how these relationships in
particular, and epistemological beliefs and learning approaches in general, are related
to students formal educational experiences as they progress in their studies.
It was somewhat worrying to detect dissonant study orchestrations amongst future
teachers, as shown by this study, and less desirable (surface) approaches amongst
undergraduate students at tertiary level, as inferred from the review of the literature
in the introduction. The question is: how can we explain that, while higher education
institutions seem to be focused on quality assurance by means of innovative teaching
learning environments, some students are apparently failing to construct meaning
from their educational experiences in a desirable (deep) way? Some recent research
has indicated that the impact of the university educational experience on students
epistemological beliefs, on the one hand, and on learning approaches, on the other
hand, seems to be more limited than expected. For example, Brownlee et al. (2001)
recognise that to transform epistemological beliefs may be a slow and difficult
process. These authors observed only slight changes in the belief development of pre-
service teachers after applying a programme focused on supporting such change.
Zeegers (2001, p. 130) noted that in Australia, despite much rhetoric to the
contrary, tertiary students are not encouraged to engage in favourable, that is, deep
learning as a result of the tertiary experience. As the author suggested, one possible
explanation for this result was related to the teachinglearning environment, which
did not require students to go about their learning in a meaningful way. However,
Epistemological beliefs of university students 633
context itself could not explain why a university educational research project carried
out in the Netherlands, which focused on powerful learning environments, failed to
influence reported learning strategies in the direction of more deep and self-regulated
learning (Vermetten et al., 2002). Seeking an explanation for this result, these
authors designed a second study in which student groups with different learning char-
acteristics were identified (by means of cluster analysis), and thus proved that
students from these groups vary in their perceptions, tending to use instructional
measures in different ways, to suit their own particular way of learning. Finally, they
suggest that to improve the quality of student learning, instructional measures should
address the conceptual domain of learning conceptions and beliefs, of which students
have to become aware (p. 282).
Taking into account that student learning in higher education relates not only to
the contextual domain (e.g. teaching and assessment) but to the personological
domain (e.g. perceptions of the context, motivation, habitual ways of learning)
(Biggs, 2001), to hold constant some variables (e.g. context and students) could
possibly be helpful in addressing this issue, and might shed light on the debate on
consistency versus variability in learning experience. With regard to this, a longitudi-
nal study (i.e. the same students) in the current powerfully innovative learning
environment (i.e. the same context) would allow us to gain an insight into students
diverse perceptions of context, and to discover possible changes: (a) in these percep-
tions of the context, which seems relevant for learning approaches, study orchestra-
tions and beliefs about learning, and (b) over time, which seems important for beliefs
about knowledge, as Schommer (1994) suggested.
To summarise, student teachers learning experience included different but related
elements (learning approaches, study orchestrations and epistemological beliefs),
which were linked to academic performance. Follow-up studies of these students to
discover how the university teachinglearning environment impacts on their learning
experience would give us a better understanding, enabling academic staff to provide
greater scaffolding support, particularly in teacher education institutions and possibly
also in higher education institutions in general.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the helpful comments of both the editor and two anony-
mous referees on a draft of this article, and the support and assistance of Barbara
Lamplugh in reviewing the manuscript in English.
References
Baird, J. R. (1990) Metacognition, purposeful enquiry and conceptual change, in: E. Hegarty-
Hazel (Ed.) The student laboratory and the science curriculum (London, Routledge), 183200.
Biggs, J. B. (1985) The role of metalearning in study processes, British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 55, 182212.
Biggs, J. B. (1987a) Student approaches to learning and studying (Camberwell, Victoria, Australian
Council for Educational Research).
634 L. Rodrguez and F. Cano
Biggs, J. B. (1987b) The Learning Process Questionnaire (LPQ): Manual (Hawthorn Victoria,
Australian Council for Educational Research).
Biggs, J. B. (1987c) The Study Process Questionnaire (SPQ): Manual (Hawthorn, Victoria, Australian
Council for Educational Research).
Biggs, J. (1991) Approaches to learning in secondary and tertiary students in Hong Kong: some
comparative studies, Educational Research Journal, 6, 2739.
Biggs, J. (1993) What do inventories of students learning processes really measure? A theoretical
review and clarification, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 117.
Biggs, J. B. (1999) Teaching for quality learning at university (Buckingham, Open University
Press).
Biggs, J. B. (2001) Enhancing learning: a matter of style or approach? in: R. J. Sternberg & L. F.
Zhang (Eds) Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles (Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates), 73102.
Biggs, J. B. & Moore, P. (1993) The process of learning (3rd edn) (New York, Prentice Hall).
Biggs, J. B. & Watkins, D. (Eds) (1995) Classroom learning: educational psychology for the Asian
teacher (Singapore, Prentice Hall).
Brownlee, J., Purdie, N. & Boulton-Lewis, G. (2001) Changing epistemological beliefs in pre-
service teacher education students, Teaching in Higher Education, 6, 247268.
Buelens, H., Clement, M. & Clarebout, G. (2002) University assistants conceptions of
knowledge, learning and instruction, Research in Education, 67, 4457.
Cano, F. (2005) Epistemological beliefs, approaches to learning, and academic performance,
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 121.
Cano, F. & Cardelle-Elawar, M. (2004) Students beliefs about learning and knowledge: an inte-
grated analysis, European Journal of Psychology of Education, XIX, 167187.
Case, J. & Gunstone, R. (2002) Metacognitive development as a shift in approach to learning: an
in-depth study, Studies in Higher Education, 27, 459470.
Chan, K. (2003) Hong Kong teacher education students epistemological beliefs and approaches
to learning, Research in Education, 69, 3650.
Cliff, A. (2000) Dissonance in first-year students reflections on their learning, European Journal of
Psychology of Education, XV, 4960.
Cohen, J. & Cohen, P. (1983) Applied multiple regression/correlations analysis for the behavioral
sciences (2nd edn) (Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates).
Dart, B. C., Burnett, P. C., Purdie, N., Boulton-Lewis, G., Campbell, J. & Smith, D. (2000)
Students conceptions of learning, the classroom environment, and approaches to learning,
Journal of Educational Research, 93, 262270.
Davis, J. E. C. & Sales, G. D. (1996) Dental and life science students: a comparison of approaches
to study and course perceptions, Medical Education, 30, 453458.
Davis, E. A. (1997) Students epistemological beliefs about science and learning, paper presented
at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, March.
Eklund-Myrskog, G. & Wenestam, C. G. (1999) Students approaches to learning in Finnish
general upper secondary school, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 43, 518.
Entwistle, N. J. & Ramsden, P. (1983) Understanding student learning (London, Croom Helm).
Entwistle, N., McCune, V. & Walker, P. (2001) Conceptions, styles and approaches within higher
education: analytic abstractions and everyday experience, in: R. J. Sternberg & L. F. Zhang
(Eds) Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles (Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates), 103136.
Entwistle, N., Meyer, J. H. F. & Tait, H. (1991) Student failure: disintegrated patterns of study
strategies and perceptions of the learning environment, Higher Education, 21, 249261.
Gow, L. & Kember, D. (1990) Does higher education promote independent learning? Higher
Education, 19, 307322.
Harvey, L. & Green, D. (1993) Defining quality, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education,
18, 835.
Epistemological beliefs of university students 635
Herzberg, P. A. (1969) The parameters of cross-validation, Psychometrika Monograph Supplement,
16, 167.
Hofer, B. K. & Pintrich, P. R. (1997) The development of epistemological theories: beliefs about
knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning, Review of Educational Research, 67,
88140.
Honkimki, S., Tynjl, P. & Valkonen, S. (2004) University students study orientations, learning
experiences and study success in innovative courses, Studies in Higher Education, 29, 431449.
Kember, D. (2000) Misconceptions about the learning approaches, motivation and study practices
of Asian students, Higher Education, 40, 99121.
Kember, D. & Leung, D. Y. (1998) The dimensionality of approaches to learning: an investigation
with confirmatory factor analysis on the structure of the SPQ and LPQ, British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 68, 395407.
Lindblom-Ylnne, S. & Lonka, K. (1998) Individuals ways of interacting with the learning
environmentare they related to study success, Learning and Instruction, 9, 118.
Lindblom-Ylnne, S. & Lonka, K. (2000) Dissonant study orchestrations of high-achieving
university students, European Journal of Psychology of Education, XV, 1932.
Lizzio, A., Wilson, K. & Simons, R. (2002) University students perceptions of the learning
environment and academic outcomes: implications for theory and practice, Studies in Higher
Education, 27, 2752.
Marton, F. & Slj, R. (1984) Approaches to learning, in: F. Marton, D. J. Hounsell & N. J.
Entwistle (Eds) The experience of learning (Edinburgh, Scottish Academic Press), 3958.
Marton, F., DallAlba, G. & Beaty, E. (1993) Conceptions of learning, International Journal of
Educational Research, 19, 277300.
Marton, F., Watkins, D. & Tang, C. (1997) Discontinuities and continuities in the experience of
learning: an interview study of high-school students in Hong Kong, Learning & Instruction, 7,
2148.
Meyer, J. H. F. (1991) Study orchestration: the manifestation, interpretation and consequences of
contextualised approaches to studying, Higher Education, 22, 297316.
Meyer, J. H. F. (2000) The modelling of dissonant study orchestration in higher education,
European Journal of Psychology of Education, XV, 518.
Meyer, J. H. F. & Boulton-Lewis, G. M. (2003) Editorial. Variation in dissonance in learning
patterns: towards an emerging theory? Studies in Higher Education, 28, 34.
Meyer, J. H. F., Parsons, P. & Dunne, T. T. (1990) Study orchestration and learning outcome:
evidence of association over time among disadvantaged students, Higher Education, 20,
245269.
Morgan, A. & Beaty, L. (1997) The world of the learner, in: F. Marton, D. Hounsell & N. Entwistle
(Eds) The experience of learning: implications for teaching and studying in higher education
(Edinburgh, Scottish Academic Press), 217237.
Pajares, M. F. (1992) Teachers beliefs and educational research: cleaning up a messy construct,
Review of Educational Research, 62, 307332.
Perry, W. G. (1970) Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: a scheme (New
York, Holt, Rinehart & Winston).
Perry, W. (1981) Cognitive and ethical growth: the making of meaning, in: A. W. Chickering (Ed.)
The modern American college (San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass), 7611.
Prosser, M. & Trigwell, K. (1999) Understanding learning and teaching (Buckingham, Open University
Press).
Prosser, M., Trigwell, K., Hazel, E. & Waterhouse, F. (2000) Students experiences of studying
physics concepts: the effects of disintegrated perceptions and approaches, European Journal of
Psychology of Education, XV, 6174.
Purdie, N., Douglas, G. & Hattie, J. (1996) Student conceptions of learning and their use of self-
regulated learning strategies: a cross-cultural comparison, Journal of Educational Psychology,
88, 87100.
636 L. Rodrguez and F. Cano
Ramsden, P. (1988) Context and strategy: situational influences of learning, in: R. R. Schmeck
(Ed.) Learning strategies and learning styles (New York, Plenum Press), 159184.
Richardson, J. T. E. (1994) Mature students in higher education. I. A literature survey on
approaches to studying, Studies in Higher Education, 19, 309325.
Richardson, V., Anders, P., Tidwell, D. & Lloyd, C. (1991) The relationship between teachers
beliefs and practices in reading comprehension instruction, American Educational Research
Journal, 28, 559586.
Ryan, M. P. (1984) Monitoring text comprehension: individual differences in epistemological
standards, Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 248258.
Slj, R. (1982) Learning and understanding: a study of differences in constructing meaning from
a text, Gothenburg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
Schommer, M. (1990) Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension, Journal
of Educational Psychology, 82, 498504.
Schommer, M. (1993) Epistemological development and academic performance among secondary
students, Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 406411.
Schommer, M. (1994) An emerging conceptualization of epistemological beliefs and their role in
learning, in: R. Garner & P. Alexander (Eds) Beliefs about text and about text instruction
(Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum), 2539.
Schommer, M. (1998) The influence of age and education on epistemological beliefs, British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 551562.
Schommer, M., Calvert, C., Garigliety, G. & Bajaj, A. (1997) The development of epistemological
beliefs among secondary students: a longitudinal study, Journal of Educational Psychology, 89,
3740.
Trigwell, K. & Prosser, M. (1991a) Improving the quality of student learning: the influence of
learning context and student approaches to learning on learning outcomes, Higher Education,
22, 251266.
Trigwell, K. & Prosser, M. (1991b) Relating approaches to study and quality of learning outcomes
at the course level, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 61, 265275.
Trigwell, K., Prosser, M. & Waterhouse, F. (1999) Relations between teachers approaches to
teaching and students approaches to learning, Higher Education, 37, 5770.
Van Rossum, E. J. & Schenk, S. M. (1984) The relationship between learning conception, study
strategy and learning outcome, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 54, 7383.
Vermetten, Y. J., Vermunt, J. D. & Lodewijks, H. G. (2002) Powerful learning environments?
How university students differ in their response to instructional measures, Learning and
Instruction, 12, 263284.
Vermunt, J. D. (1996) Metacognitive, cognitive and affective aspects of learning styles and strategies:
a phenomenographic analysis, Higher Education, 31, 2550.
Volet, S. E., Renshaw, P. D. & Tietzel, K. (1994) A short term longitudinal investigation of cross-
cultural differences in study approaches using Biggs SPQ questionnaire, British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 64, 301318.
Watkins, D. (2001) Correlates of approaches to learning: a cross-cultural meta-analysis, in: R. J.
Sternberg & L. F. Zhang (Eds) Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles (Mahwah,
NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 165195.
Watkins, D. & Hattie, J. (1981) The learning processes of Australian university students: investiga-
tions of contextual and personological factors, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 51,
384393.
Watkins, D., Hattie, J. & Astilla, E. (1986) Approaches to studying by Filipino students: a
longitudinal investigation, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 56, 357362.
Zeegers, P. (2001) Approaches to learning in science: a longitudinal study, British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 71, 115132.