Differential Use of Study Approaches by Students of Different Achievement Levels
-
Diane M. Bunce [1] ; Regis Komperda [2] ; Maria J. Schroeder [3] ; Debra K. Dillner [3] ; Shirley Lin [3] ; Melonie A. Teichert [3] ; JudithAnn R. Hartman [3]
-
[1] Catholic University of America
Catholic University of America
Estados Unidos
-
[2] Portland State University
Portland State University
Estados Unidos
-
[3] United States Naval Academy
United States Naval Academy
Estados Unidos
-
- Localización: Journal of chemical education, ISSN 0021-9584, Vol. 94, Nº 10, 2017, págs. 1415-1424
- Idioma: inglés
- Texto completo no disponible (Saber más ...)
-
Resumen
This study examined similarities and differences in study approaches reported by general chemistry students performing at different achievement levels. The study population consisted of freshmen enrolled in a required year-long general chemistry course at the U.S. Naval Academy. Students in the first and second semesters of the course were surveyed using a modified version of the published Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students (ASSIST) referred to as the M-ASSIST (Modified Approaches and Study Skills Inventory). Responses to items associated with using deep or surface approaches to studying were examined for students of three achievement levels (A/B, C, and D/F course grades) using both ANOVA and Structured Means Modeling to look for differences in study approaches between achievement levels. Results show that, with only 12 items, the M-ASSIST can be used to measure differences in reported use of deep and surface approaches by students in different achievement groups; that Structured Means Modeling can uncover significant differences that are not apparent with an ANOVA analysis of the same data; and that A/B and D/F students can be classified as reporting using either using primarily deep (A/B students) or primarily surface (D/F) study approaches. C students reported study approaches characteristic of both the A/B and D/F groups, leading to the interpretation that C students may be in an intermediate and possibly transitional state between the higher- and lower-grade groups. These results suggest a new understanding of C students as those who may not fully implement deep approaches to studying but, in general, demonstrate less reliance on surface approaches than lower-achieving students.
