This paper reports a study which traces the changes in local and overseas students' learning and performance goals, learning strategies and perceptions in an undergraduate economics course in Australia. The study sought to describe changes in students' learning intentions, learning strategies, perceptions and attempted grades in the context of one unit over one semester and to determine if overseas students differed from local students for these variables. Three questionnaires were administered over one semester. Students' learning and performance goals, strategies and perceptions changed during the course of the semester and few differences between local and overseas students were identified. This paper supports the view that it is not appropriate to view university students as holding stable learning intentions and perceptions, and questions whether overseas students should be characterised as different from local students.
Overseas and local students' goals and management of study is an area highly relevant to Australian higher education. A number of reports and surveys have identified demographic and economic information on overseas students as well as their perceptions of tertiary institutions in Australia (Burns, 1990; Gillett, 1985; Kim & Crowley, 1990; Sealie, Gurry & Quintrell, 1990), but little has been done to identify their learning goals and strategies, and their perceptions of the learning situation. The extent that overseas students are alike or different from local students on these dimensions has also received little attention (Volet & Renshaw, 1993).
The work of Saljo (1979) on conceptions of learning provides a basis for learning goals to be described in qualitative terms along a hierarchy of goals. As a result of interviews with adult students, Saljo inferred from their descriptions of their learning practices that learning could be described in terms of five different conceptions: increase of knowledge, memorising, acquisition of information that can be used later, abstraction of meaning, and interpretation of reality. Saljo's five conceptions of learning have been confirmed by Marton, Dall'Alba and Beaty (1993) who provide more precise definitions of the conceptions.
Volet and her colleagues (eg, Volet & Lawrence, 1989; Volet & Chalmers, 1992; Volet & Renshaw, 1993) worked with university students in a variety of subject areas to investigate whether Saljo's (1979) conceptions of learning could be used as a basis for developing a hierarchy of specific goal statements. They derived statements of goals from the various conceptions of learning and presented them to students to determine whether students perceived them as hierarchic, and whether they accepted them as describing the type of outcomes they intended to achieve. Using an unfolding model of stage development (Andrich, 1989), they developed and validated the following hierarchy of goals: remembering, understanding, comparing and contrasting, critically assessing theories, and constructing one's own theoretical perspective (Volet & Chalmers, 1992; Volet and Renshaw, 1993). These five learning intention statements have been used in this study to identify students learning goals.
Learning goals in the context of academic learning are not always conceptualised as those identified by Saljo (1979) and quantified by Volet and colleagues (eg. Volet & Chalmers, 1992; Volet & Renshaw, 1993). Theorists currently distinguish between learning and performance goals (Dweck & Elliot, 1983). In a university learning setting, students' goals may also be conceptualised as performance goals which focus on achieving particular grades. Although learning and performance goals are directed at different types of achievement, students can hold both types of goals simultaneously (Nichols, Patashnick & Nolen, 1985). In the university context performance goals would be reflected in the grades that students try to achieve, and differences between students would be evidenced by their attempting to achieve different grades (Stipek, 1993).
Much of the previous research on goals assumed that they were stable, but recent findings suggest that this may not be the case. For example, Volet and Styles (1992) used both learning and performance goal measures to investigate first year university students' goals in a computer course, and found a shift from higher level to lower level goals over the course of a semester. A similar observation was made by Volet and Chalmers (1992) with both the learning and performance goals of first year economics students. On the other hand, Gibbs, Morgan & Taylor (1984) found evidence of change towards higher level goals, and Volet and Renshaw (1990) found that introducing a reflective assessment procedure into a course was associated with a significant upward shift in the level of students' personal goals for the course. Volet and Renshaw's (1993) study on students' goals in a first year economics unit found the overseas students held higher learning goals than local students at the beginning of their first semester of university study. However, by the end of one semester of study there were no difference between the learning goals of local and overseas students with the overseas students adopting the lower level learning goals of the local students. Both local and overseas students adopted lower level goals as the semester progressed. The context of learning would seem to be important in affecting the level of student goals (Chalmers & Volet, 1992), with the studies reviewed indicating that students may set different goals for the various units in which they enrol and adjust them according to their changing perceptions of the learning context as the semester progresses.
Both the learning goals and performance goals of first year economics local and overseas students are identified in this study. The evidence suggests that students' goals are dynamic, and are likely to change according to their experiences and perceptions of various aspects of the learning situation. In this study the stability of local and overseas students' learning and performance goals over one semester is examined.
While there has been little investigation of the study strategies and management of overseas students in comparison to their Australian counterparts, a number of survey studies have described some typical learning problems encountered by first year overseas students (eg, Ballard, 1987; Barker, Child, Gallois, Jones & Callan, 1991; Burke, 1986; Gassin, 1982; Kim & Crowley, 1990). These studies typically stereotype overseas students as passive, respectful and textbook dependent students, who do not participate in class discussions and who lack analytical and critical skills (Bourke, 1986; Ballard, 1987; 1989; Samuelowics, 1987). Overseas students are also presented as surface learners who aim to rote learn factual knowledge. However, recent research on learning orientations and study strategies of these students presents a different view indicating that rather than being passive learners, overseas students seek full understanding of their chosen area of study, and may even possess more effective learning orientations than local students (Biggs, 1989, 1990,1993; Volet & Kee, 1993; Volet, Renshaw & Tietzel, 1993). For example, students from South East Asia were found to seek assistance from their friends and tutors more than local students (Renshaw & Volet, 1993). Similarly, students in Hong Kong were found to establish spontaneous collaborative learning groups to support their learning (Tang, 1993). These student initiated strategies could be seen as strategic ways to promote learning. It is argued by these authors that their studies demonstrate that overseas students are highly strategic and responsive to the learning demands of the learning context. This study seeks to identify local and overseas students' learning strategies in the context of one unit of study over one semester.
In this study it is proposed to draw a profile of first year local and overseas students' management of study in a Bachelor of Business course in terms of students' initial and revised learning and performance goals, learning strategies and perceptions throughout the semester. It is also intended to investigate the relationship of local and overseas students' goals, study strategies and perceptions of study and explore possible interaction effects with age and gender.
Local | Overseas | Total | |
Under 20 | 200 (45%) | 41 (41%) | 241 |
Over 20 | 248 (55%) | 58 (59%) | 306 |
Total | 448 (100%) | 99 (100%) | 547 |
The local students comprised 59% (265) male and 41% (183) female and the overseas students comprised 46% (44) male students and 54% (52) female, which was significantly different, X2(1) 5.77, p =.02.
Start Semester | Mid Semester | End Semester | |
Learning Goals | | | |
Learning Strategies | | | |
Perceptions | | | |
Attempted Grades | | | |
Obtained Grades | | | |
N = 547 | N = 352 | N = 231 | |
Learning goals. The five learning conceptions identified by Saljo (1979) and Marton and Saljo (1984) were incorporated into goal statements (Chalmers, Fuller & Kirkpatrick, 1993; Volet and Chalmers, 1992; Volet & Renshaw, 1993). Each of these five statements were paired with each other to make a total of ten pairwise combinations. Students were asked to choose a statement that reflected their preferred learning intention for the Economics unit from each pair of statements. The statements in order were: Remember the key features of economic theories and the economic world, Understand the key features of economic theories and the economic world, Compare and contrast economic theories as they apply to the economic world, Critically assess theories as they apply to the economic world, and Construct your own theoretical perspective of the economic world.
Performance goals. Performance goals were identified by the grades students were attempting to achieve. On each of the three occasions, students were asked to indicate the grades they were trying to get in the unit. These ranged from A grade (4), B grade (3), C+ grade (2) and C grade (l) which are the grades awarded by the university.
Learning strategies. Learning strategy statements were developed to describe activities which students may engage to achieving their learning intentions. The 10 statements used in the Chalmers and Volet (1992) interview study were further developed for the questionnaires in this study. The strategies related to managing class and learning requirements, working with difficult concepts, and developing personal understanding of the unit materials and concepts. Students were required to respond to each statement on a 4 point scale: I do this - Very Often (4), Often (3), Not Often (2), Never (1).
Perceptions. On each of the three occasions, students were asked to rate their perceptions of study in the economics unit in terms of their competence, success, interest, relevance of the program to their course of study and to their personal interest in the subject. These were rated on a 5 point scale of Very (5) to Not at all (1). The instrument was initially based on Boekaert's (1987) research, and has been used in previous studies with computing students (Voles & Styles, 1989), economics students (Voles & Chalmers, 1992: Volet & Renshaw, 1993) and education students (Chalmers, Fuller and Kirkpatrick, 1993; Fuller, Chalmers & Kirkpatrick, 1994).
Students were different in their previous economics study experience with 49 % of local and 74 % of overseas students having previously studied economics, X2(1) 13.60, p =.000. Of those who had previously studied economics, 66% of local students and 87% of overseas students had studied one unit, and 34% of local students compared with 12% of overseas students had previously studied two or more units X2(2) 7.83, p =.02. Most students who had previously studied economics found this useful for their study of the university economics unit (85% local and 92% overseas).
Forty-six percent of overseas students found they had difficulty with the language and they experienced difficulty when writing assignments (16%), reading (6%), or in a combination of learning situations, for example, lectures, tutorials, and private study (15%). Fifty-four percent of overseas students indicated that they experienced no difficulty with language.
The local and overseas students were similar in the time previously spent at university and their course of study. More overseas students had studied one unit of economics, while more local students had studied two or more units. Approximately half of the overseas students experienced difficulty with the language in the learning situation.
The percentages indicate that fewer students preferred higher level goals over lower level goals at the end of the semester than at the beginning of semester for all pairs except Critical (4) over Compare (3).
Chi-square analyses found no differences between the overseas and local students' learning goals either at the beginning of semester or at the end of semester. Regardless of student group, the students did not differ in their endorsement of goals, or in the general trend to endorse lower level goals over higher level goals as the semester progressed.
Learning Intention | Remember | Understand | Compare | Critically assess |
||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Local % | O/seas % | Local % | O/seas % | Local % | O/seas % | Local % | O/seas % | |
Understand Start Semester End Semester |
92 81 | 92 83 | ||||||
Compare Start Semester End Semester |
75 56 | 76 63 | 30 27 | 38 33 | ||||
Critically assess Start Semester End Semester | 69 52 | 64 59 | 35 31 | 44 30 | 24 32 | 20 41 | ||
Construct Start Semester End Semester | 53 40 | 45 37 | 22 21 | 27 20 | 27 22 | 30 18 | 29 28 | 26 28 |
Attempted grades | Local Mean (sd) | Overseas Mean (sd) | Significance |
Start Semester | 3.30 (.78) | 3.01 (.72) | |
Mid Semester | 2.98 (.94) | 2.90 (.86) | |
End Semester | 2.56 (1.01) | 2.67 (.93) | Time *** |
Key: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001 |
Additional questions showed that students were aware they had changed their attempted grade. In the middle of semester when asked if they thought they had changed their attempted grade about a quarter of students indicated that they had changed (25% local, 21% overseas). By the end of semester 47% of local and 36% of overseas students indicated that they had changed the grade they were initially aiming for at the beginning of semester. Students based their decision of attempted grades on work in tutorials (22% local, 18% overseas), assignment work (14% local, 27% overseas), a combination of these (34% local, 30% overseas) or other reasons (30% local, 25% overseas). These other reasons varied but tended to relate to the time and effort they had put in to their study.
Students were asked their reasons for selecting a particular grade. More students gave the reason for selecting particular grade as they "wanted to do their very best but not necessarily aim for an A". Sixty-two percent of local students indicated this reason compared with 79% of overseas students, X2(3) 13.72, p =.003.
Students, regardless of age, gender or student group systematically lowered the both their learning and performance goals as the semester progressed. Students were aware of their changing performance goals with the majority indicating that it was a result of feedback received through assessment and tutorial participation.
Students responded on a 4 point scale on the frequency for each strategy from I do this very often (4) to I never do this (1). A series of 2 age by 2 gender by 2 student group repeated measures MANOVAs were carried out on the 17 items for the two questionnaire occasions to identify changes in students' learning strategies over the semester. Most effects related to changes over time with few age, gender or student group effects.
Strategies to manage class and learning requirements
A number of learning strategy items related to students' strategies to meet unit requirements and prepare for lectures and tutorials. Four of the six items changed over time: attending lectures and tutorials; completing suggested reading before class; completing tutorial questions before class; and handing assignments in on time.
Students indicated that they: attended lectures and tutorials more in the middle of semester than they did at the end of semester (mean: 3.80>3.61), F(1,169) 12.18, p =.001; did the suggested reading before class more in the middle of semester than they did at the end of semester (mean: 2.69>2.41), F(1,166) 9.31, p =.003; prepared tutorial questions before class more in the middle of semester than they did at the end of semester (mean: 3.38>3.04), F(1,166) 14.35, p =.000; and worked on independent study questions more in the middle of semester than they did at the end of semester (mean: 2.33>2.16), but this was of marginal significance, p =.06. The trend of decreasing use of strategies as the semester progressed was reversed for handing in assignments on time where students did this less in the middle of semester and more at the end of semester (mean: 3.15<3.84), F(1,164) 17.51,p=.000.
While the strategy for practicing worked exercises again and again did not change over time, here was a age by student group by time interaction, F(1,166) 4.41, p =.04. The interaction is illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Age by student group by time interaction for
practising worked exercises again and again
Local students under 20 years of age and overseas students over 20 years of age increased their reported use of the practice strategy while local students over 20 years and overseas students under 20 years reported a decreased use of this strategy. The mean scores for strategies to manage class and learning requirements are shown in Table 5.
Learning Strategy | Local Mean (sd) | Overseas Mean (sd) | Significance |
Attend lectures/classes Start Semester End Semester | 3.74 (.51) 3.60 (.56) | 3.75 (.50) 3 54 (.63) | Time** |
Do suggested reading before classes Start Semester End Semester | 2.65 (.83) 2 41 (.77) | 2.49 (.75) 2.29 (.74) | Time** |
Prepare tutorial questions before class Start Semester End Semester | 3.37 (.74) 2.98 (.78) | 3.13 (.78) 2.93 (.71) | Time*** |
Complete independent study questions Start Semester End Semester | 2.37 (.88) 2.17 (.86) | 2.42 (.84) 2.21 (.81) | Time NS (p =.06) |
Practise worked examples again and again Start Semester End Semester | 2.16 (.67) 2.16 (.74) | 2.22 (.62) 2.24 (.62) | Age x Group x Time* |
Hand assignments in on time Start Semester End Semester | 3.19 (1.17) 3.88 (.34) | 3.31 (.99) 3.62 (.66) | Time*** |
Key: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001 |
Working with difficult concepts
A number of learning strategy items related to students working to understand the information. Items in this group of strategies related to memorising important information, organising a study plan, making summaries of difficult material and working with others.
Two of the six items changed over time: Working with other students and getting help from staff. Students indicated that they worked with other students less in the middle of semester than at the end of semester (mean: 1.65<1.77), F(1,167) 7.28, p =.008, and that they sought help from staff when they needed it less in the middle of semester than at the end of semester (mean: 1.87<1.92), F(1,167) 6.39, p =.01.
There was an age by student group by time interaction for getting help from staff when needed, F(1,167) 8.78, p =.003. The interaction is illustrated in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Age by student group by time interaction for
getting help from staff when needed
Overseas students aged over 20 years and local students aged under 20 years reported they sought help from staff less in the middle of the semester than they did at the end of semester, while overseas students aged under 20 years, and local students aged over 20 years reported little change in their strategy of seeking help from staff throughout semester.
There was an age by gender by student group by time interaction for memorising important information, F(1,168) 4.96, p =.03. The interaction is illustrated in Figure 3.
Figure 3: Age by gender by time interaction for memorising
important information strategy
Female students aged over 20 years reported an increase in the memorising strategy more than male students. At the end of semester female students overall reported greater use of memorising important information than male students.
There was also an age by time interaction for memorising important information, F(1, 168) 4.68, p = .03. The interaction is illustrated in Figure 4.
Figure 4: Age by time interaction for memorising important information strategy
Students under 20 years of age reported they memorised important information more in the middle of the semester than the end of semester, while students under 20 years of age did not change in their use of this strategy. The mean scores for working with difficult concepts by student group are shown in Table 6.
Learning Strategy | Local Mean (sd) | Overseas Mean (sd) | Significance |
Memorise important information Start Semester "End Semester | 2.84 (.69) 2.98 (.68) | 2.90 (.68) 3.02 (.65) | Age x Time* Age x Sex x Time* |
Summarise difficult material Start Semester End Semester | 2.66 (.86) 2.69 (.85) | 2.40 (.80) 2.58 (.84) | |
Write difficult material in own words Start Semester End Semester | 2.72 (.80) 2.67 (.85) | 2.43 (.78) 2.54 (.77) | |
Organise a study plan Start Semester End Semester | 2.33 (.82) 2.30 (.82) | 2.21 (.64) 2.14 (.65) | |
Work with other students Start Semester End Semester | 1.72 (.79) 1.73 (.77) | 1.74 (.64) 1.93 (. 69) | Time** |
Get help from staff when needed Start Semester End Semester | 1.87 (.69) 1.87 (.67) | 1.89 (.68) 2.17 (.69) | Time ** Age x Student group x Time** |
Key: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001 |
Strategies to develop personal understanding
A number of learning strategy items related to students developing personal meaning and understanding. Items in this group of strategies related to contrasting theories with one another, critically assessing the information, and reassessing their own viewpoints. There were no effects for age, gender or student group and no changes over time. The mean scores to develop personal understanding by student group are shown in Table 7.
Learning Strategy | Local Mean (sd) | Overseas Mean (sd) | Significance |
Concentrate on understanding concepts Start Semester End Semester | 3.18 (.62) 3.19 (.55) | 3.03 (.72) 3.07 (.60) | |
Contrast theories with one another Start Semester End Semester | 2.16 (.80) 2.11 (.76) | 2.21 (.75) 2.21 (.76) | No significant differences were found for these strategies |
Critically assess the information Start Semester End Semester | 2.38 (.73) 2 42 (.71) | 2.45 (.66) 2.45 (.77) | |
Reassess own viewpoint Start Semester End Semester | 2.72 (.80) 2.68 (.78) | 2.43 (.78) 2.41 (.67) | |
Construct own theories Start Semester End Semester | 2.11 (.70) 2.03 (.72) | 2.19 (.72) 2.02 (.76) | |
Key: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001 |
The students reported decreased use of learning strategies over time regardless of age, gender and student group. Local and overseas students were similar in their reported use of learning strategies. Overseas students differed with local students on only two strategies; practising worked exercises and getting help from staff. For these strategies the older overseas students and younger local students were more alike with each other than they were with the younger overseas students.
Students' scores did not differ for the major assignment but differed in the final grade, F(3, 443) 5.15, p=.002. Students' marks were different with older students attaining a higher grade (1.65) than younger students (1.31), F(1,443) 9.19, p=.003. Overseas students scored slightly higher final marks and grades than local students but this was only of marginal significance, p=.07. Mean scores for students' obtained marks are shown in Table 8.
Obtained Marks | Local Mean (sd) | Overseas Mean (sd) | Significance |
Mid Semester Test | 11.08 (3.26) | 10.96 (3.42) | Age* Gender** |
Major Assignment Final Mark Final Grade | 12.55 (3.89) 54.42 (17.69) 1.44 (1.14) | 13.06 (3.46) 57.26 (16.51) 1.67 (1.19) | Age** |
Key: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001 |
Five of the six perception items changed over time: competence, success, difficulty, relevance of the unit to the overall program and relevance of the unit to their personal interest.
Competence
There was an age by student group by time interaction for perception of their personal competence, F(2,166) 5.30, p =.006. Students changed their perception of competence from the beginning of semester to the middle of semester, F(1,167) 4.77, p =.03, and again from the middle of semester to the end of semester, F(1, 167) 5.24, p =.02. The interaction is illustrated in Figure 5.
Figure 5: Age by student group by time interaction for perceptions of competence
While students held similar perceptions of competence at the start of the semester, overseas students aged over 20 had lower perceptions of competence in the middle of the semester than all other students. At the end of the semester their perception of competence had increased, while the perceptions of competence of the local students aged over 20 years did not. Overseas students aged under 20 years did not change significantly their perceptions of competence from the beginning of semester to the end of semester .
There was an age by time interaction for perception of competence, F(2,166) 5.53, p =.005. Students changed their perceptions of competence according to age from the beginning of semester to the middle of semester, F(1,167) 4.34, p =.04, and again from the middle of semester to the end of semester, F(1,167) 6.13, p = .01. The interaction is illustrated in Figure 6.
Figure 6: Age by time interaction for perceptions of competence
Students were similar in their perceptions of competence at the beginning of the semester but as the semester progressed students over 20 years of age decreased their perceptions of competence more than younger students.
Students indicated that their perception of competence decreased over time, F(2,166) 11.83, p =.000, with students perceiving themselves more competent at the beginning of the semester (mean, 3.46) than the middle of the semester (3.04), F(1,167) 20.73, p =.000. At the end of semester this had not changed (3.10).
Success
Students indicated that their perception of success decreased over time, F(2,165) 5.01, p =.008, with students perceiving themselves more successful at the beginning of the semester (mean, 3.63) than the middle of the semester (3.37), F(1,166) 9.09, p =.003. At the end of semester this had not significantly changed (3.30).
Difficulty
Students indicated that their perception of the difficulty of the unit increased over time, F(2,165) 3.37, p =.04, with students perceiving the unit as more difficult at the middle of the semester (mean, 2.48) than the beginning of the semester (2.25), F(1,166) 5.60, p =.02. At the end of semester this had not significantly changed (2.35).
Additional questions in the middle and end of semester asked students if they were experiencing difficulty working on the unit. About half of all students indicated that they were, 52% local and 46% overseas, p>.05. At the end of the semester more local than overseas students indicated that they were experiencing difficulties in the unit, 65% local and 48% overseas, X2(1) 4.57, p=.03.
Relevance of the unit to the overall program of study
Students indicated that their perception of the relevance of the unit to their overall program of study decreased over time, F(2,158) 9,20, p =.000, with students perceiving the unit as less relevant at the middle of the semester (mean, 3.32) than the beginning of the semester (3.66), F(1,159) 17.50, p =.000. At the end of semester this had not significantly changed (3.25).
Relevance of the unit to their personal interest
There was a gender by time interaction for relevance of unit to their personal interest, F(2,158) 3.13, p =.05. Students changed their perceptions of relevance to their personal interest according to their gender from the middle of semester to the end of semester, F(1,160) 5.73, p =.02. The interaction is illustrated in Figure 7.
Figure 7: Age by gender by time interaction for perceptions
of relevance to personal interest
Male students' perceptions of relevance to their personal interest continued to decrease from the beginning of semester to the end of semester. However, female students' perceptions of relevance had changed by the end of semester where they perceived it as more interesting than the male students.
Students indicated that their perception of the relevance of the unit to their personal interest decreased over time, F(2,159) 5.58, p =.005, with students perceiving the unit as less relevant to their interest at the middle of the semester (mean, 3.08) than the beginning of the semester (3.41), F(1,160) 11.13, p =.001. At the end of semester this had not significantly changed (3.16). The students' mean scores for perceptions are shown in Table 9.
Perceptions | Local Mean (sd) | Overseas Mean (sd) | Significance |
Competence Start Semester Mid Semester End Semester | 3.55 (.78) 3.08 (.79) 3.11 (.69) | 3.40 (.78) 3.21 (.62) 3.22 (.57) | Age x Student x Time** Age x Time** Time*** |
Success Start Semester Mid Semester End Semester | 3.72 (.63) 3.38 (.75) 3.29 (.61) | 3.64 (.71) 3.42 (.68) 3.45 (.64) | Time** |
Difficulty Start Semester Mid Semester End Semester | 2.27 (.78) 2.47 (.88) 2.37 (.93) | 2.46 (.76) 2.59 (.91) 2.49 (.84) | Time* |
Interesting Start Semester Mid Semester End Semester | 3.33 (.91) 3.05 (.99) 3.11 (.99) | 3.26 (.89) 3.25 (.77) 3.29 (.90) | |
Relevance of unit to overall program Start Semester Mid Semester End Semester | 3.66 (.94) 3.34 (1.07) 3.26 (1.01) | 3.37 (.78) 3.33 (.75) 3.29 (.75) | Time*** |
Relevance of unit to personal interest Start Semester Mid Semester End Semester | 3.33 (1.02) 3.11 (1.09) 3.15 (1.05) | 3.17 (.93) 3.21 (1.03) 3.15 (1.08) | Gender x Time* Time** |
Key: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001 |
An additional question at the end of semester asked students if the unit turned out as they had expected. Fewer local students (58%) found the unit as they expected compared to overseas students (81%) who found it to be as they had expected, X2(1) 7. 19, p =.007.
Few differences in the perceptions of students were observed, regardless of age, gender and student group for the three questionnaire occasions. Differences were found in students' perceptions of competence in the unit, and their perceptions of the relevance of the unit to their personal interest according to age, gender and student group. A general trend was for students' perceptions to decrease from the beginning of semester to the middle of semester and then to remain stable through to the end of semester.
There were 8 learning strategies that correlated with the grade which local students were attempting to achieve at the middle of semester. These were handing assignments in on time, working on independent study questions, writing difficult material in their own words, concentrating on understanding the concepts, contrasting theories with one another, critically assessing the information, constructing their own theories and reassessing their own viewpoint. All correlations were low ranging from .13 to .18, but are significant at 0.05. In contrast, there were no correlations between overseas students' attempted grade and learning strategies in the middle of semester.
At the end of semester there were 6 learning strategies that correlated with the grade local students were attempting to achieve. These were organising a plan or study plan, practising worked exercises again and again, working on independent study questions, concentrating on understanding the concepts, contrasting theories with one another, and critically assessing the information. Correlations continued to be low, ranging from .17 to .26. For overseas students there were only two significant correlations between attempted grade and learning strategies at the end of semester; contrasting theories with one another, and critically assessing the information. The correlations were higher than local students, and ranged from .32 to .35. Significant correlations for learning strategies with attempted grades are shown in Table 10.
Learning Strategy | Local r Sig | Overseas r Sig |
Hand assignments on time Mid Semester End Semester | 0.17** 0.03 | 0.02 -0.09 |
Organise a study plan Mid Semester End Semester | 0.01 0.18* | 0.00 -0.14 |
Practise worked examples again and again Mid Semester End Semester | 0.09 0.17* | -0.01 -0.11 |
Complete independent study questions Mid Semester End Semester | 0.14* 0.26** | -0.10 0.10 |
Write difficult material in own words Mid Semester End Semester | 0.13* 0.14 | 0.11 -0.10 |
Concentrate on understanding concepts Mid Semester End Semester | 0.13* 0.24** | 0.05 0.26 |
Contrast theories with one another Mid Semester End Semester | 0.14* 0.22** | 0.08 0.32* |
Critically assess the information Mid Semester End Semester | 0.18* 0.24** | 0.11 0.35* |
Reassess own viewpoint Mid Semester End Semester | 0.13* 0.12 | 0.11 -0.00 |
Construct own theory Mid Semester End Semester | 0.13* 0.11 | -0.11 0.05 |
Key: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001 |
Students' perceptions and attempted grades correlated more for local students than overseas students. Local students' perceptions of their competence, success and relevance of the unit correlated highly with their attempted grade. Overseas students' attempted grades correlated with their perception of competence but with few perceptions. Both local and overseas students had high correlations with their attempted grade and their obtained marks. Significant correlations for perceptions and obtained marks with attempted grades are shown in Table 11.
Perceptions | Local r Sig | Overseas r Sig |
Competence Mid Semester End Semester End Semester | 0.39** 0.45** 0.37** | 0.38** 0.27* 0.42** |
Success Mid Semester End Semester End Semester | 0.42** 0.53** 0.51** | 0.49** 0.47* 0.35* |
Difficulty Mid Semester End Semester End Semester | 0.17** 0.24** 0.05 | 0.05 0.26* 0.39* |
Interesting Mid Semester End Semester End Semester | 0.24** 0.22** 0.14 | 0.31** 0.07 0.05 |
Relevance of unit to overall program Mid Semester End Semester End Semester | 0.14** 0.16* 0.19* | 0.14 0.12 -0.13 |
Relevance of unit to personal interest Mid Semester End Semester End Semester | 0.20** 0.25** 0.30** | 0.28** 0.13 0.12 |
Obtained Marks with Attempted Grade at end of semester Mid Semester End Semester End Semester | 0.43* 0.11 0.33** | 0.44** 0.07 0.49** |
Key: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001 |
In summary, there were few differences between local and overseas students. The local and overseas students were similar in their learning and performance goals, learning strategies, and perceptions. Where differences did emerge it was found that older overseas students were similar to younger local students. The grade local students were attempting to achieve related more to their reported learning strategies and perceptions while the grade overseas students were attempting to achieve related to fewer learning strategies and perceptions.
Overseas students have often been characterised as surface learners who aim to rote learn factual knowledge (Ballard, 1989; Samuelowics, 1987). However, the overseas students in this study did not report greater use of memorising strategies than the local students. More significantly their reported use of strategies to develop personal understanding were not different from local students, nor did they decrease over time. Where differences were found between overseas and local students, age was a contributing factor. Older overseas students were more like younger local students than younger overseas students. These findings support the growing body of research that overseas students are not passive or surface learners but instead seek full understanding of their chosen area of study (Biggs, 1992; 1993; Volet & Kee, 1993)
Overseas and local students did not differ in their perceptions of success, difficulty, interest, and relevance. There were differences between students at the beginning of the semester in perceptions of competence. Again the older overseas students and the younger local students were more alike in their perceptions of competence. Younger overseas students did not change their perceptions of competence throughout the semester.
It was expected that performance goals and perceptions would be related, since they involved perceptions about the unit and about the students' expected success and competence in the unit (Entwistle, 1991; Volet & Styles, 1992). Students who perceived the unit as being interesting or relevant, or themselves as being competent and likely to achieve success, were expected to hold higher performance goals that students whose perceptions of competence and success were lower. This relationship was found for the local students and to a lesser extent, for the overseas students. Local students' performance goals correlated with all six of the perceptions while overseas students' goals correlated with only two, perceptions of competence and success.
While local students' performance goals related to both their learning strategies and perceptions, this relationship was not evident for overseas students' goals and learning strategies. It is not clear why this would be the case and warrants further investigation.
Note: This research was supported by a research grant from Edith Cowan University.
Baker, M., Child, C., Gallois, G., Jones, E., & Callan, V. J. (1991). Difficulties of overseas students in social and academic situations. Australian Journal of Psychology, 43(2), 79-84.
Ballard, B. (1987). Academic adjustment: The other side of the export dollar. Higher Education Research and Development, 6(2), 109-119.
Ballard, B. (1989). Overseas students and Australian academics: Learning and teaching styles. In B. Williams (Ed.), Overseas students in Australia: Policy and practice. IDP, Canberra.
Biggs, J. (1989, Nov.) Students' approaches to learning in Anglo-Chinese and ESF schools. Paper presented at the Sixth Annual Conference of the Hong Kong Educational Research Association.
Biggs, J. (1989). Approaches to learning in two cultures. In V. Bickley (Ed.), Teaching and learning styles within and across cultures: Implications for language pedagogy. Hong Kong: Education Department, Institute of Language in Education.
Biggs, J. (1990, July). Asian students' approaches to learning: Implications for teaching overseas students. Keynote discussion paper, 8th Australasian Tertiary Learning Skills and Language Conference, Queensland University of Technology.
Biggs, J. B. (1992). Why and how do Hong Kong students learn? Using the Learning and Study Process Questionnaires. Hong Kong: Faculty of Education, University of Hong Kong.
Biggs, J. B. (1993). What do inventories of students' learning processes really measure? A theoretical review and clarification. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 3-19.
Boekaerts, M. (1987). Situation specific judgements of elements of the task-situation complex versus overall measures of motivational orientation. In E. de Corte, H. Lodewijks, R. Parmenter & P. Span (Eds.), Learning and instruction. Oxford/Leuven: Pergamon Press/Leuven University Press.
Burns, R. B. (1990). The adjustment of overseas students: A study of the academic, cultural, social and personal problems of overseas first year students at an Australian university. Paper presented at the Internationalisation of Industry, Government and Education in Western Australia. Curtin University WA. November.
Bourke, B. D. (1986). Experiences of overseas undergraduate students. Sydney, The University of New South Wales.
Chalmers, D., Fuller, R. F., & Kirkpatrick, D. (1993). Everyone wants an A - but will they even get a C? Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE) conference, Fremantle, Western Australia.
Chalmers, D. & Volet, S. E. (1992). How stable are university students' learning characteristics? Identifying dynamic adjustments in goals and study strategies. Paper presented at the Seventh Australian Developmental Conference, Brisbane.
Dweck, C. S. & Elliot, E. S. (1983). Achievement motivation. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), Socialisation, personality, and social development (Vol. 4 of P. H. Mussen, Ed., Handbook of child psychology, pp. 643-691). New York: Wiley.
Entwistle, N. J. (1991). Approaches to learning and perceptions of the learning environment. Higher Education, 22, 201-204.
Fuller, R., Chalmers, D., & Kirkpatrick, D. (1994). Teaching university students learning and study strategies in context. An experimental study. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Higher Education and Research Development Society of Australasia (HERDSA). Canberra, July.
Gassin, J. (1982). Learning difficulties of a foreign student, HERDSA News, 4(3), 1316.
Gibbs, G., Morgan, A., & Taylor, E. (1984). The world of the learner. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell and & N. Entwistle (Eds.), The experience of learning (pp.165-188). Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.
Gillett, A. (1985). Western Australian tertiary overseas student study. Unpublished memo of the WAIT student guild. WA.
Kim, H. S., & Crowley, M. (1990) A study of ELICOS students' perceptions on aspects of studying in Australia. Paper presented at the Internationalisation of Industry, Government and Education in Western Australia. Curtin University WA. November.
Marton, F., Dall'Alba, G., & Beaty, E. (1993) Conceptions of learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 19(3), 277-300.
McKeachie, W. J., Pintrich, P., Lin, Y. G. & Smith, D. (1987). Teaching and learning in the college classroom. University of Michigan: NCRIPTAL.
Nicholls, J. G., Patashnick, M. & Nolen, S. B. (1985). Adolescents' theories of education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 683-92.
Nolen, S. B. (1987). The hows and whys of studying: The relationship of goals to strategies. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.
Pintrich, P. R. & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33-40.
Renshaw, P., & Volet, S. E. (1993) A cross-cultural study of observed and self-reported participation in university tutorials. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE) conference, Fremantle, Western Australia. November.
Saljo, R. (1979). Learning in the learner's perspective: Some commonsense conceptions. Reports from the Institute of Education, University of Goteborg, No. 76.
Samuelowics, K. (1987). Learning problems of overseas students: Two sides of a story. Higher Research and Development, 6(2), 121-133.
Stipek, D. J. (1993). Motivation to learn. From theory to practice. (2nd ed.) Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Tang, K. C. C. (1993). Spontaneous collaborative learning: A new dimension in student learning experience? Higher Education Research and Development, 12(2), 115-130.
Volet, S. E., & Chalmers, D. (1992). Investigation of qualitative differences in university students' learning goals based on an unfolding model of stage development. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 1734.
Volet, S. E. & Kee, J. P. P. (1993). Studying in Singapore - Studying in Australia: A student perspective. Murdoch University Teaching Excellence Committee. Occasional paper No 1.
Volet, S. E., & Lawrence, J. A. (1989). Goals in the adaptive learning of university students. In H. Mand., E. de Corte, N. Bennett & H. F. Friedrich (Eds.), Learning and instruction: European research in an international context. Vol III (pp. 497-516) Oxford: Pergamon.
Volet, S. E., & Renshaw, P. D. (1990). The significance of metacognitive assessment for university students' learning. Paper presented at the conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education. Sydney.
Volet, S. E., & Renshaw, P. D. (1993). Cross-cultural differences in university students' goals and perceptions of study settings for achieving their own goals. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE) conference, Fremantle, Western Australia. November.
Volet, S. E., & Renshaw, P. D., & Tietzel, K. (in press) A short-term longitudinal investigation of cross-cultural differences in study approaches using Biggs SPQ questionnaire. British Journal of Educational Psychology.
Volet, S. E., & Styles, I. M. (1992). Predictions of study management and performance on a first year computer course: the significance of students' study goals and perceptions. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 423-449.
Wittrock, M. C. (1986). Students' thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook on research in teaching (3rd ed.). (pp.297-314). New York: Macmillan.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1986). Becoming a self-regulatory learner: Which are the key subprocesses? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11, 307-313.
Author: Denise Chalmers is currently working as an instructional designer with University Learning Systems, Edith Cowan University. She was previously a Lecturer in Educational Psychology and Human Development in the Faculty of Education. She is currently involved in a number of research projects on university students' goals, study strategies and management of study.
Please cite as: Chalmers, D. (1994). Local and overseas students' goals and management of study. Issues In Educational Research, 4(2), 25-56. http://www.iier.org.au/iier4/chalmers.html |
© 1994 Issues in Educational Research
Last revision: 5 Nov 2013. This URL: http://www.iier.org.au/iier4/chalmers.html
Previous URL: http://education.curtin.edu.au/iier/iier4/chalmers.html
Previous URL from 27 July 1997 to 8 Aug 2001: http://cleo.murdoch.edu.edu.au/gen/iier/iier4/942p25.htm
HTML: Clare McBeath [c.mcbeath@bigpond.com] and Roger Atkinson [rjatkinson@bigpond.com]