365

Higher Education 8 (1979) 365 - 380

9 Elsevier Scientific Publishing C o m p a n y , Amsterdam - Printed in the Netherlands

IDENTIFYING DISTINCTIVE APPROACHES TO STUDYING

NOEL ENTWISTLE
Department of Education, University of Edinburgh,'Edinburgh, United Kingdom

MAUREEN HANLEY and DAI HOUNSELL

btstitute for Research and Development in Post-Compulsory Education,
UniversiO' of Lancaster, Lancaster, United Kingdom

ABSTRACT

Dimensions which have been used to describe various aspects of studying are
reviewed. These draw attention to three distinctive approaches to studying which contain
elements of both study processes and motivation. The development of an inventory of
approaches to studying is reported which confirmed the importance of these three
dimensions, but also drew attention to the importance of characteristic styles of learning
in describing the processes through which students arrive at different levels of under-
standing.

Introduction

STUDY METHODS AND MOTIVATION

In a series o f studies carried out at Lancaster since 1968 attempts have

been made to develop inventories to measure important aspects o f study
m e t h o d s and motivation. The original scales were developed in a collaborative
study in Aberdeen (Entwistle and Wilson, 1970), while subsequent modifica-
tions o f these scales have been used to predict academic performance
(Entwistle and Entwistle, 1970; Entwistle and Wilson, 1977). These scales
gave separate scores for motivation and study methods. The type o f motiva-
tion implied by the items was akin to Atkinson's descriptions o f achievement
motivation (Atkinson and Raynor, 1974), though specific to the academic
context. The study m e t h o d s scales emphasised organisation and planning.
These scales showed consistent but rather low correlations with
academic performance. Their greatest weakness was an over-simple descrip-
tion o f study methods, through a failure to take account o f the existence o f
very different approaches to studying used by students. On theoretical
366

grounds it was argued (Entwistle et al., 1974) that it would be important to

distinguish between three forms of motivation - extrinsic motivation,
intrinsic motivation stemming from interest in the subject matter, and
intrinsic motivation which depended on the maintenance of self-esteem. An
interview study (Entwistle et al., 1974) linked this last form of motivation
with achievement motivation or "hope for success" (Atkinson and Raynor,
1974). The contrasting motivation which emerged clearly from the comments
of students was "fear of failure", and in a large scale follow-up study
(Entwistle and Wilson, 1977) distinctive clusters o f students were identified
with these two different forms of motivation. The students in these clusters
also had very different ways of studying. The confident students with a high
"need for achievement" scored highly on both scales - motivation and study
methods. But the total pattern of their responses suggested

a rather cold and ruthless individual, governed by rationality and spurred on by

competition to repeated demonstrations of intellectual mastery (Entwistle and
Wilson, 1977, p. 129).

"Fear of failure" showed itself in a marked lack of confidence and a

high level of neuroticism. Yet many of these students obtained good degrees,
while showing only moderate or low scores on the scales of motivation and
study methods. It was clearly necessary to produce a modified inventory
with additional dimensions.
The next scale to be added was based on the ideas of "syllabus-
boundness" and "syllabus-freedom" described by Hudson (1968) and Parlett
(1970). Some students prefer to have clear instructions, deadlines, and
defined courses, while others demand much more autonomy in their learning.
Again both groups can do well in examinations, though the "syllabus-free"
category is most at risk.
Parlett also carried out a study of students' perceptions of assessment
procedures in a department at Edinburgh University (Miller and Parlett,
1974). Interviews with students showed differences in the attempts they
made to "play the system". Some students were "cue-seeking": they sought
out lecturers and tried to discover what was required in the examinations.
At the other extreme were "cue-deaf" students, who saw assessment as an
objective procedure for determining what had been learned. In this issue
Ramsden (1979) argues that "cue-seeking" as defined by Parlett can only be
used effectively in rather open, informal departments. In other departments
certain students will however, take special care to look for other indications
of what is required. He suggests therefore that we should use the term
strategic to describe this more general tendency to determine the implicit
rules of the assessment game. This dimension has been built into the most
recent inventory.
 367

APPROACHES TO LEARNING AND STUDYING

The development o f the new inventory was also substantially influenced

by recent research into student learning and studying carried out by Marton
in Gothenburg, Pask in London, and Biggs in Newcastle, Australia.
Marton (1976) has described marked differences in the way students
tackle academic tasks. When students were asked to read an academic article
and told to be prepared to answer questions on it afterwards, some students
interpreted this instruction as demanding a thorough understanding o f the
author's main message or argument, while others directed their efforts towards
the rote learning o f important pieces o f information on which questions
might subsequently be asked.
Marton himself describes this difference in terms of deep-level and
surface-level processing. He argues that the way students interpret the
instructions and the learning task creates an intention to learn in a particular
way. This intention leads to a distinctive process o f learning which in turn
affects the level o f understanding (or o u t c o m e ) subsequently reached. If a
student starts with an intention to rote learn, full understanding is impossible
while that strategy persists. On the other hand, an intention to understand
may not always lead to a deep level o f understanding if, for example, the
subject matter is unfamiliar or too difficult. .

Learning can be viewed, then, in terms o f three related elements:

intention, process, and outcome. Marton's description o f deep-level pro-
cessing, however, covers both intention and process, which may lead to
confusion. We therefore prefer to use the term approach in referring to this
construct, and have incorporated scales o f deep and surface approaches in
the inventory. In attempting to measure approaches, however, there is an
assumption that students will exhibit sufficient consistency in intention and
process across broadly similar academic tasks to :justify measuring it as a
dimension. In the literature to date there is evidence o f consistency (Svensson,
1977) when the approach is similar in both an experimental situation (reading
an academic article) and in normal studying. But there is also evidence of
task specificity. Marton (1976) argues persuasively for the effect o f b o t h the
c o n t e x t and the content on the approach adopted, and Laurillard (1978)
has shown differences in approach even where the tasks are drawn from the
same subject area. Elsewhere (Entwistle, 1979) it has been suggested that b o t h
consistency and variability can be seen in students' intellectual processes. In
our view, it is legitimate for researchers to concentrate on either consistency
or variability, providing that to focus on one of the two types o f description
is not to deny the existence or importance o f the other. Separate explorations
appear to be justified, for the present at least, even if in the longer term it
will be necessary to a t t e m p t a theoretical resolution.
368

STYLES AND STRATEGIES

The problem of consistency versus variability, or task specificity, is

also very much to the fore when the focus of attention is on process rather
than intention. Clearly there is still a strong element o f intention in any
description o f the learning process or processes adopted by a student, but it
seems important to distinguish between strategy and style, where strategy is
a description of the way a. student chooses to tackle a specific learning
task in the light o f its perceived demands, and style is a broader characterisa-
tion of a student's preferred way o f tackling learning tasks generally. This
definition o f strategy of course rules out the possibility of developing any
general scale to measure it.
Pask (1976) draws a similar distinction between style and strategy. In
giving a variety of academic tasks to students he has found distinctive
differences in the processes of learning used. In most o f Pask's studies he
attempts to control outcome. While Marton, by using a potentially ambiguous
instruction, "be ready to answer questions afterwards," allows students to
demonstrate their contrasting interpretations o f that request, Pask makes it
clear to students from the start that understanding is the goal, and they have
to be able to demonstrate it under stringent conditions.
Pask found that, even when understanding was the required o u t c o m e ,
the students still adopted different strategies. Some students used a holist
strategy with the intention o f trying to build up, right from the start, a broad
view o f the learning task how the subject-matter fittest in with other
related topics, with ,real life" and with personal experience. In the process
of learning these students asked complex questions a b o u t what they were
trying to learn, looked for relationships between ideas, and readily used
analogies, illustrations and concrete examples. They sometimes used very
personal analogies which, while being formally incorrect or incomplete,
provided useful temporary "pegs" on which to hang partially understood
abstract concepts.
The opposite strategy is called serialist. The intention here appeared
to be the attempt to build understanding out o f the c o m p o n e n t details,
logical steps, and operations taken strictly in a linear sequence. The student
had a narrow focus of interest. While relationships were sought, these were
likely to be looked for entirely within the c o n t e x t of the task and to involve
relationships between facts or experirfiental results rather than between
theoretical ideas. The serialist strategy might involve the use o f analogies,
particularly formal analogies, but only where these were seen as an essential
part of the task requirements.
Pask (1976) has since argued that behind these specific strategies lie
distinct learning styles. Thus some students show a predisposition to adopt
holist strategies even where the task requires serialist processes. This relatively
 369

consistent style is described as comprehension learning, with an emphasis on

broad description building. Students who show a preference for serialist
strategies utilise operation learning and rely on building up meaning from the
details. To reach a full understanding o f most academic topics both learning
procedures have to be followed. Students have to view the learning task in a
wider perspective, building up an overview by use o f relevant interrelation-
ships between ideas and appropriate analogies. But they must also examine
facts, the logic o f arguments and c o m p o n e n t processes in sufficient detail to
be able to support their overview with detailed evidence and reasoning.
Ideally students will pursue the topics until they generate their own personal
perspective on the tasks presented. They are able, to use Bruner's (1974)
phrase, to go " b e y o n d the information given". Students who are consistently
able to adopt a strategy appropriate to the task, and to integrate what they
learn into their own personal yet valid interpretations, exhibit a versatile style
of learning which has strong parallels (in terms of outcome) with the earlier
description o f the deep approach to studying.
Some students will fall short o f this ideal. Their styles will lead them
into characteristic pathologies of learning. If comprehension learning is used
exclusively, the search for interconnections and a broad overview, without
supporting arguments or evidence, is described by Pask as globetrotting. The
reliance on operation learning leads to improvidence, a failure to make use of
valid analogies or to see the learning task in a broad context.

STUDY BEHAVIOUR AND PROCESSES

The work of Biggs, like that carried out at Lancaster, has been concerned
with the development o f an inventory to identify and measure the most
important dimensions underlying study behaviour and attitudes. In his Study
Behaviour Questionnaire, Biggs (1976) included the following ten sub-scales:

Academic aspiration. Pragmatic, grade-orientated, university as means.

Academic interest. Intrinsically motivated, study as end.
Academic neuroticism. Confused, overwhelmed by demands of course work.
Internality. Sees " t r u t h " coming from within not external authority.
Study skills and organisation. Works consistently, reviews regularly, schedules work.
Fact-rote strategy. Centres on facts, details, rote learns.
Dependence. Rarely questions instructors, tests; needs support.
Meaning assimilation. Reads widely, relates to known, meaning orientated.
Test anxiety. Very concerned about tests, exams, fear of failure.
Openness. [Believes] university place where values are questioned.
(Biggs, 1976, p. 72).

In this issue, Biggs (1979) reports a factor analysis o f a revised form o f

this inventory (now called the Study Processes Questionnaire). Three second-
370

order factors summarised the interrelationships between the ten scales, and
each of these factors contained both a cognitive and a motivational compo-
nent, as follows:

Factor Cognitive Motivational

Utilising Fact-rote strategy Extrinsic, fear of

failure

Internalising Meaning assimilation Intrinsic

Achieving Study skills and Need for achievement

organisation

Development of the Lancaster Inventory

DEFINING THE SCALES

In 1975 work began on developing a new inventory at Lancaster which

would extend the earlier attemps at measuring study methods and motiva-
tion. Many of the original items were retained to form the basis of the
following scales, (Cronbach ~ coefficients of reliability based on the six best
items which were subsequently retained are shown in parentheses).
Organised study methods (10 items, 0.72)
Achievement motivation ( 6 items, 0.59)
Fear of failure ( 6 items, 0.69)
Disillusioned attitudes ( 6 items, 0.71 )
Syllabus boundness ( 6 items, 0.53)
Sociability ( 6 items, * )
(For further details see Entwistle and Wilson, 1977; Entwistle, 1975).
To these were added the Marton and Pask dimensions of
Deep level approach ( 8 items, 0.60)
Surface level approach ( 8 items, 0.50)
Comprehension learning ( 8 items, 0.65)
Operation learning ( 8 items, 0.62)
Other additions were based on thJe interviews by Ramsden (1979) and
on items used by Biggs (1976)
Strategic approach ( ! 0 items, 0.55)
Intrinsic motivation ( 6 items, 0.74)
Extrinsic motivation ( 6 items, 0.70)

* Scale subsequently dropped from inventory.

 371

Internality ( 6 items, * )
Openness ( 6 items, * )
A clearer idea o f the domains covered by these scales is provided by a
selection o f the defining items, shown in the Appendix.
The inventory was developed through a series of pilot versions. At each
stage alpha factor analysis with rotation to oblique simple structure was
carried o u t using the SPSS programme (Nie et al., 1975). In addition each
scale was carefully examined to ensure content validity and conceptual con-
sistency in relation to the constructs described in the literature. The only
scales which did not emerge consistently as distinct factors were the four
new scales associated with the ideas o f Marton and Pask. There was overlap
between "deep level a p p r o a c h " and "comprehension learning", and also
between "surface level approach" and "operation learning". Nevertheless the
separate scales were retained in the hope that subsequent refinement might
enable what seem to be important conceptual distinctions to be isolated.

INTERRELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN INVENTORY SCALES

The most recent survey using the Lancaster Inventory has been com-
pleted by 767 first-year (second term) students from nine departments in
three universities (see Table I).
The SPSS programme was used to carry o u t principal c o m p o n e n t s
analyses, followed by rotation to oblique simple structure. The analyses were
carried o u t separately for arts, social science, and science students, but the

TABLE I

Sample Sizes by Department and Institution

Lancaster Dundee/
St. Andrews

First Year First Year

English 154
History 170 5O
Psychology 105 64
Physics 34 76
Engineering 52 62
Independent studies -

* Scale subsequently dropped from inventory.

372

factor structure proved as robust as that reported by Biggs. Table II thus

shows the factor structure matrix for the fifteen scales of the inventory for
the complete sample. Four factors had eigen values o f above unity and these
explained 56% of the overall variance in the correlational matrix.

TABLE II

Factor Loadings of Study Strategy Scales

I II III IV

Deep approach 62 33
Comprehension learning 73
Intrinsic motivation 54 47
Internality 61
Openness 50

Surface approach 67
Operation learning 67
Extrinsic motivation 61
Fear of failure 36 -32
Syllabus bound -41 50

Strategic approach 41
Organised study methods 64
Achievement motivation 36 45
Disillusioned attitudes -55
Sociability 58

The four factors can be described as follows.

I Deep Approach~Comprehension Learning
This factor is very close to Bigg's "internalising". It carries the same
emphasis on intrinsic motivation and active search for personal meaning,
but it contains its .highest loading on comprehension learning. This
factor may thus be considered to contain a stylistic c o m p o n e n t in
addition to those elements identified by Biggs.
II Surface A pproach/Operation L earning
This shows a close similarity to the "utilising" factor. It shows high
loadings on surface level approacl~ and also on extrinsic motivation,
syllabus-boundness and fear of failure. But again the high loading on
operation learning could imply an additional stylistic component.
HI Organised, A chievement-Orientated Studying
This is the "achieving" factor with high positive loadings on organised
study methods and achievement motivation, and a high negative loading
on disillusioned attitudes. There are also significant loadings on both
 373

deep approach and intrinsic motivation without any hint of a stylistic

c o m p o n e n t in this case.
I V Stable Ex traversion
The final factor appears to be a combination of the two most basic
personality traits described by Eysenck (1970). A similar factor was
reported earlier in work on primary school children where scales of
both motivation and personality were included (Entwistle and Bennett,
1973). It is essentially stable extraversion.
This analysis appears to support the claim by Biggs that three second-
order factors

seem to offer a parsimonious and theoretically coherent model for conceptualising

the more important ways in which students may feel about, and behave towards,
their study (Biggs, 1979, p. 383).

The only reservation which should be added on the basis of the Lan-
caster analyses would be that it may be important to take account of stylistic
differences in study processes which were not included in the Biggs inven-
tory. We shall return to this possibility in a subsequent section.
As a result of further item analyses and discussion of these initial
analyses, it was decided to shorten the inventory. Three scales were dropped
- internality, openness and sociability - and the six [1] best items from
each scale were chosen to produce shorter and more homogeneous scales.
Items were retained on the basis of the factor analyses and the item-total
correlations, together with an examination of the distributions of responses.

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN STUDY STRATEGIES AND ACADEMIC

PERFORMANCE

To date two exploratory discriminant function analyses and a canonical

correlation have been carried out. In the first of these, two groups, each of
24 students, were defined in terms of the very best and very worst academic
perfonnance. The twelve shortened study strategy scales were used to
predict membership o f these groups. For the low group the prediction was
correct for 83.3% o f those identified, while for the high group 75.0% of the
students were assigned correctly. The discriminant function was defined
mainly in terms o f comprehension learning ( - 0 . 7 2 ) , study methods (0.59),
extrinsic motivation (0.56), intrinsic motivation (0.51), and operation
learning ( - 0 . 4 2 ) . The direction of these coefficients suggests that this
analysis may have tapped the characteristic pathologies associated with
Pask's learning styles (globetrotting and improvidence). From an examina-
tion of mean scores, it appears that "globetrotting" (failure to use supportive
evidence) may be being more heavily penalised in first-year examinations
374

than "improvidence" (failure to move beyond factual details or to see wider

interconnections). Otherwise the most successful students can be charac-
terised by higher all-round motivation (intrinsic, extrinsic and achievement),
more favourable attitudes and very much more organised study methods.
The second discriminant function was designed to determine which
specific items emerged first in iJredicting overall academic performance. For
this analysis four groups were used with different levels of high and low
academic performance (N = 24, 40, 42 and 24). The items included early in
this analysis, and which also showed a clear trend in item means across the
four groups, were:
- My habit of putting off work leaves me with far too much to do at
the end of term. ( - v e relationship with performance)
- I prefer to keep the theories and academic arguments I read separate
from my own ideas. ( - )
- In trying to understand a puzzling idea, I let my imagination wander
freely to begin w i t h . . . ( - )
- If conditions aren't right for me to study I generally manage . .. to
change them. (+)
[ like to play around with ideas of my own even if they don't get me
-

very far. ( - )
I prefer to learn the facts and details about a topic, rather than get
-

bogged down in too much theory. ( - )

There is a clear impression from these items of organised study methods,
attempts to relate theory with reality, and avoidance of globetrotting among
the two highest groups of students.
The final analysis to date on relationships with academic performance
has been a canonical correlation in which three measures of academic per-
formance (overall first-year grade, performance in preferred specialism, and
A level grades at school) were grouped and compared with the twelve shorter
study strategy scales. Only one canonical variable was significant and this
strongly linked overall first-year university grade with organised study habits,
together with low scores on surface approach and comprehension learning,
thus ahnost exactly paralleling the earlier analyses.

D i s c u s s i o n

)
Parts of the analyses reported earlier did little more than reinforce what
was already well known about the importance of organised study methods
for successful academic performance. What was more interesting was the
emergence of stylistic differences in learning and repeated indications that
the weaker students were showing pathologies, particularly of globetrotting
but also of improvidence. Perhaps it may seem strange that some of the
 375

weakest students should have high scores on both o f these stylistic variables,
but an extract from one o f Ramsden's interviews indicates one way in which
such a combination might inhibit academic progress.

I think it tends to be the case that I get bogged down in detail. I'm sure that's the
' case - I mean it explains why I'm so long-winded about any work that I do. I really
don't find it easy to pick out the skeletal argument and just be satisfied with
that . . . When I'm reading to find out about a particular topic I tend to be a bit
specific initially, but I do find that I get misled very easily and as soon as another
area comes up which is perhaps not quite to do with the t o p i c . . , but has interesting
connections, then I go off on tangents. Very" regularly I end up sort of {laughs)
miles away from where I originally started.

The factor analyses o f our scales and those o f Biggs provided strong
support for the existence o f three major orientations to studying towards,
respectively, meaning, reproduction, and achievement. It is important to
recognise the strength o f this evidence, coming as it does from different
inventories used in different educational systems. If students did not them-
selves recognise some consistency in their own m e t h o d s o f studying, it is
difficult to see how distinctive patterns o f response could be obtained by
this type o f analysis. Of course, by its very nature, an inventory o f this
kind serves to highlight the more stable characteristics of a student's general
orientation to studying and cannot readily a c c o m m o d a t e variability or the
use o f contrasting strategies in different learning situations. It seems
reasonable, however, to accept that studying behaviour contains elements
both o f individual stability, and situational variability, comparable to that
reported for attitudes or values in the psychological literature.
Our research did, however, upset the parsimony o f Biggs' description.
In our analyses (see also Entwistle et al., 1979) it ~vas not possible to see the
orientation towards meaning as being identical with a deep approach, as it
clearly also involved tendencies towards superficiality, i.e., towards the
pathology o f globetrotting. Nor was it clear that the orientation towards
reproduction was as limited an approach as this description implies. Within
this dimension were both the surface approach with its emphasis on memori-
sation o f facts and definitions, and the concentration on detailed procedures
and factual evidence which is the hallmark o f operation learning.
Figure 1 represents an a t t e m p t at bringing together the work o f Marton,
Pask, and Biggs within a framework provided partly by the factor analysis
o f the Lancaster inventory and partly by the earlier conceptual analyses.
This framework is necessarily speculative at this stage o f our research, but it
will be used to guide subsequent development o f the inventory, which in
turn will lead to empirical testing o f the underlying model of learning and
studying.
The first three columns o f the diagram describe the factor structure of
376

O~
._c
c r
>

_Oo~) o o
u~
E ~
om--E o
"c)
o ,_5= = = ~ o C c~ 0

ill
IV
,_o ,_o o ~ Z "
I=I c L
.c.c ~ ~ ~ c '-- "Z.._
g c ,~-~ o
o o ~ = ' ~ _ - ,.~ o ~ -~- - 0 " ~u
o "~_. u , - " " ~ " u r
_ = ~ | .... = .~ .>
o>f ~ ~._.
L
C:
'- ~ , ~ ~ o--.r''- ~8 L|
~ cx~| ~ >
E
r
o
0

L O
11. ~L
~o 0.~-~
gg .C
U --
o~ o'~u
R
el,
c- o . ~ .c "T
0 "i- e-
0 L c 0
~'9
E .>_
+-~
rn-O 0 e- o

r
0
o

5
o C
0
E L I- C1

r~ > 0 o 0
<
r
"0
C
O.
c 70
70 D
c -c
0 L o
go
.u_ E ' u I
LL,
o~
9- - 0 J~
.__.'~ 0
,j
E~
X 0.~-- ~o~
v

C
0 c
70 c
c O~'ID
D
(~ "--
I;
70
c ~c r IV
o o <.c

h
 377

the inventory, while the fourth column indicates the overlap that was
found between approach and style o f learning. The main advance provided
by this figure is to isolate four distinct processes o f learning, all of which are
essential to a deep level o f understanding. These processes are shown as
occurring in two stages. The first stage involves initial attention either to the
overall description (comprehension learning) or to the details of the evidence
and to steps in the argument (operation learning). This initial focus of atten-
tion leads on to the second stage o f considering relationships, which may
involve either examining links between ideas or concepts and with personal
experience (comprehension learning), or the way pieces of evidence fit
together to build up a logical argument (operation learning). To reach a deep
level o f understanding all four processes would normally be required, but our
factor analyses suggest a tendency for each factor identified to have a
pathology, as well as a desirable attribute. The orientation towards under-
standing may be accompanied by a tendency towards the superficiality
identified with globetrotting. The orientation towards reproducing may be
partially compensated by the attention to detail found in operation learning.
And finally the orientation towards success may sacrifice understanding for
attainment, unless a demand for full understanding is built into the criteria
o f assessment.
Biggs pointed out that the distinctive study processes or approach.es to
learning encompassed different predominant motivations. These are essentially
the three types of motivation identified earlier (Entwistle etal., 1974)
- extrinsic, intrinsic/interest, and intrinsic/self-esteem. Moreover these pre-
dominant motivations may well be associated with the distinctive personality
types identified by the cluster analyses mentioned earlier (Entwistle and
Wilson, 1977). Three of these types are closely paralleled by descriptions
derived from the three factors shown in Fig. 1. q~he fourth type - idle and
unmotivated - represents the approach (or absence o f an approach) reflected
in one sub-scale, disillusioned attitudes, and by low scores on all the motiva-
tion scales.
It is perhaps worth noting in conclusion that the three approaches to
studying identified here could well be paralleled by similar approaches to
teaching, again with characteristic strengths and weaknesses. It would also be
possible to describe subject c o n t e n t and subject areas in terms o f the relative
emphasis on broad intuitive theoretical ideas and personal interpretations, or
the insistence on detailed evidence out of which to build formal, exact
theories. It is in the possible interactions between students' approaches to
learning, lecturers' styles o f teaching, and disciplinary distinctiveness that
the future o f this research lies - and the possibilities o f important implica-
tions for teaching and learning in higher education.
378

Acknowledgements

The research reported here has been supported by an SSRC research

programme grant. Sarah Burkinshaw, Paul Ramsden and Patrick Thomas
contributed valuably both to the work on the analyses and to discussions of
the results.

Appendix

D e f i n i n g I t e m s f o r E a c h o f t h e S c a l e s in t h e L a n c a s t e r I n v e n t o r y of
Approaches to Learning

(CORRELATIONS WITH SCALE TOTAL)

DEEP APPROACH
I often find myself questioning things I hear in lectures or read in books. (0.61 )
When I'm reading an article or research report, I generally examine the
evidence carefully to decide whether the conclusion is justified. (0.60)
S U R F A C E APPROACH
I find I have to concentrate on memorising a good deal of what we have
to learn. (0.62)
Often when I'm reading I look out for, and learn, things which might
come up in exams. (0.58)
COMPREHENSION L E A R N I N G
Ideas in books often set me off on long chains of thought of my own, only
tenuously related to what I was reading. (0.71)
In trying to understand a puzzling idea, I let my imagination wander
freely to begin with, even if I d o n ' t seem to be much nearer a solution. (0.63)
OPERATION LEARNING
I prefer to learn the facts and details about a topic, rather than get
bogged down in too much theory. (0.72)
I prefer to follo.w well tried approaches to problems rather than anything
too adventurous. (0.62)
STRATEGIC APPROACH
Lecturers sometimes give indications of what is likely to come up in
exams, so I look out for what may be hints. (0.59)
I try to make a really good impression on staff, even when I'm just talking
to them. ~ (0.58)
INTRINSIC MOTIVATION
I find academic topics so interesting, I should like to continue with them
after I finish this course. (0.70)
My main reason for being here is so that I can learn more about the
subjects which really interest me. (0.67)
 379

EXTRINSIC MOTIVATION
My main reason for being here is that it will help me to get a better job. (0.75)
1 generally choose courses more from the way they fit in with career
plans than from academic interest. (0.69)
A C H I E V E M E N T MOTIVATION
It is important to me to do things better than my friends, if I possibly
can. (0.69)
l enjoy competition: I find it stimulating. (0.65)
O R G A N I S E D STUDY METHODS
My habit of putting off work leaves me with far too much to do at the
end of term. (Disagree). (0.70)
Distractions make it difficult for me to do much effective work in the
evenings. (Disagree). (0.73)
D I S IL L US I ONED A T T I T U D E S
Often I find myself wondering whether the work I am doing here is
really worthwhile. (0.71)
Continuing my education was something which happened to me, rather
than something I really wanted for myself. (0.61)
F E A R OF F A I L U R E
The continual pressure of work - assignments, deadlines and competi-
tion - often makes me tense and depressed. (0.66)
Worry about an exam or about work that is overdue often prevents me
from sleeping. (0.65)
SYLLABUS-BOUNDNESS
I like to be told precisely what to do in essays or other assignments. (0.67)
I tend to read very little beyond what is required for completing assign-
ments. (0.54)
INTERNALITY
One of my main aims in life is to work out my own philosophy and
values, and then act in accordance with them. (0.59)
I have to be sure of something in my own mind before I will accept it as
being valid or true. (0.50)
OPENNESS
1 believe students should take an active part in putting forward radical
alternatives to accepted social and moral values. (0.70)
It is up to students to attack entrenched, conventional views of society. (0.66)
SOCIABILITY
I believe in taking an active part in societies and clubs. (0.66)
I like to be in the swim of things: if there is anything going on, I like to
be there. (0.64)

Note

1 Only five items could be retained in the scale of academic achievement motivation: an
additional item has now been written.
380

References

Atkinson, J. W. and Raynor, J. O. (1974). Motivation and Achievement. New York:

Winston/Wiley.
Biggs, J. B. (1976). "Dimensions of study behaviour: another look at ATI," British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 46: 6 8 - 8 0 .
Biggs, J. (1979). "Individual differences in study processes and the quality of learning
outcomes," Higher Education 8(4): 381-394.
Bruner, J. S. (1974). Beyond the InJbrmation Given. London: George Allen and Unwin.
Entwistle, N. J. (1975). "'How students learn: information processing, intellectual
development and confrontation," Higher Education Bulletin 3 : 1 2 9 - 148.
Entwistle, N. J. (1979). "Stages, levels, styles or strategies: dilemmas in the description
of thinking," Educational Review (forthcoming).
Entwistle, N. J. and Entwistle, D. M. (1970). "The relationships between personality,
study methods and academic performance," British Journal o f Educational Psychology
40: 132-141.
Entwistle N. J. and Wilson, J. D. (1970). "Personality, study methods and academic per-
formance," UniversiO' QuarterO,, 24: 147-156.
Entwistle N. J. and Bennett, S. N. (1973). "'The inter-relationships between personality,
divergent thinking and school attainment". Final report to SSRC on project HR 1346.
Entwistle N. J., Thompson, J. B. and Wilson, J. D. (1974). "Motivation and study
habits," Higher Education 3: 379-396.
Entwistle N. J. and Wilson, J. D. (1977). Degrees o f Excellence: the Academic Achieve-
ment Game. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
Entwistle N. J., Hanley, M., and Ratcliffe, G. (1979). "Approaches to learning and levels
of understanding," British Journal o f Educational Research (forthcoming).
Eysenck H. J. (1970). The Structure o f Human Personalio'. London: Routtedge, Kegan
& Paul.
Hudson, L. (1968). Frames of Mind. London: Methuen.
Laurillard, D. (1978). "A study of the relationships between some of the cognitive and
contextual factors involved in student learning". Unpublished Ph.D., University of
Surrey.
Marton, F. (1976). "What Does It Take to Learn? Some Implications of an Alternative
View of Learr~ing," in N. J. Entwistle, ed., Strategies for Research and Development
in Higher Education. pp. 32-43. Amsterdam: Swets and Zeitlinger.
Miller, C. M. L. and Parlett, M. R. (1974). Up to the Mark. aStudy of the Examination
Game. London: SRHE.
Nie, N. H., Hull, C. H., Jenkins, J. G., Steinbrenner, K. and Bent, D. H. (1975). Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences. (2nd edition) New York: McGraw Hill.
Parlett, M. R. (1970). "The Syllabus-Bound Student," in L. Hudson, ed., Ecology of
Human Intelligence. pp. 272-283 Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Pask, G. (1976). "Styles and strategies of learning," British Journal of Educational
Psychology 4 6 : 1 2 8 - 148. 9
Ramsden, P. (1979). "Student learning and perceptions of the academic environment,"
Higher Education 8(4): 411-427.
Svensson, L. (1977) "On qualitative differences in learning. I I I - Study skill and learning,"
British Journal of Educational Psychology 47: 233-243.