Accounting Education 13 (4), 431-448 (December 2004)

Gender and motivational differences in

approaches to learning by a cohort of
open learning students
PAUL DE LANGE* and FELIX MAVONDO
Monash University, Australia

Received: December 2003

Revised: April 2004; June 2004; July 2004
Accepted: July 2004 • .

Abstract
This paper examines the relationship between gender, motivational differences and students'
approaches to leaming—using a revised version of Biggs' (1987) study process questionnaire.
Responses from 246 business students studying via open leaming Australia provide data to
develop a structural equation model. The model was subsequently examined for differences across
gender groups. In the primary analysis, results suggest the same model is applicable to male and
female students, however, there are significant differences both in the strengths of relationships
and in the measurement models. Further investigation of differences within the models indicated
there may be different learning strategies tor male and female business students. Findings
presented in this paper also challenge accepted wisdom wilh regard lo questionnaire development,
as researchers need to be sensitive to gender issues, both in the manner in which the questions are
phrased and in the way the constructs are measured.
Keywords: students' approaches to leaming, student motivation, deep and surface leaming, gender,
structural equation modelling

Introduction
The aim of education is to provide a context in which students can leam and the role of the
educator is to strive for quality leaming outcomes (Davidson. 2002). Tbe quest for improved
learning outcomes is driven by calls from the accounting profession (see. Institute of Chartered
Accountants in Australia. 1994) and the desire of educators to supply quality graduates who are
able to meet tbe demands of a dynamic industry (Accounting Education Change Commission.
1990; Albrecht and Sack, 2000). A critique of the literature indicates good graduates are tech-
nically competent, critical thinkers, able to solve problems and are excellent communicators
(Booth et al., 1999; Davidson. 2002). In an effort to improve the quality of graduates some
researchers have examined ihe relative merits of pedagogical approaches suggesting that
improved learning outcomes can be achieved by the way in which educators present tbeir lear-
ning materials (Berry, 1993; Campbell and Lewis. 1991; Hall etal., 2(X)4). For example, Camp-

•Addres.s for correspondence: Dr Paul de Lange. Depatlment of Accounling and Finance. Monash University,
PO Box 527. Frankston. Victoria 3199, Australia. E-mail: paul.detange@buseco.monash.edu.au

Eiluctniori
[SSN 0963-9284 print/ISSN 1468-4489 online r 2004 Taylor & Francis Lid
hilp://www.land!'.a).Lik/journaI,s
DO!: 10.1080/0963928()42(KH)30676.5
432 de Lange and Mavondo

bell and Lewis (1991) suggested enhanced learning outcomes can be achieved witb the use of
case studies in the classroom. While these studies have provided a pletbora of ideas to assist edu-
cators make their classes more interesting, they fail to address the processes students adopt when
leaming. Understanding exactly how students approach leaming has been an area of influential
development and on going interest (see Biggs et al., 2001) in the general education literature for
over 30 years (Biggs, 1978; Entwistle and Ramsden, 1983; Marton and Saljo, 1976; Pask, 1976).
According to Biggs et al. (2001. p. 135) 'Is]tudent approaches to learning are conceived as
forming part of the total systeni in which an educational event is located", where variables
including student demographics, learning environment, students" approaches to leaming and
learning outcomes interact to umbrella the educational experience. Numerous studies have
found that instructors are able to influence the leaming environment and they further suggest
that improved educational outcomes are achieved wben tbe educator is able to understand the
way in which students approach leaming (Biggs. 1978. 1987; Birkett and Mladenovic, 2(M)2;
Marton and Saljo, 1976, 1984; Ramsden and Entwistle, 1981; Richardson, 2000). Studies tbat
purport to measure accounting students" approaches to leaming using measurement inventories
have identifled three approaches to leaming. In spite of their differences and the fact tbat tbey are
derived from different assumptions of learning and motivation, researchers bave conceptualised
these approaches as: deep approach, surface approach and achieving approach' (see Booth et al.,
1999; Duff f/ al.. 2003; Gow et al.. 1994; Sharma. 1997). These findings are not surprising,
as otber researchers bave found the presence of all three students* approaches to leaming in
their examination of student cohorts from other university faculties (Biggs, 1978; Booth
etal.. 1999).
Research tbat examines students' approaches to teaming has moved through stages of evolu-
tionary development. The first wave of researcb was conducted in Sweden using qualitative
metbods and small student groups (Marton and Saljo. 1976). From tbese early beginnings
subsequent researchers developed and refmed students" approaches to leaming inventories
(see Biggs, 1987). Students' approaches to leaming inventories are distributed en mas.se to
students to establish each student's learning approach. The use of inventories in establishing
students" approacbes to leaming in large groups of students signalled u shift from qualitative
to quantitative researcb methods (Booth et al.. 1999; Kember, 1995). Essentially the shift to
quantitative" metbods allowed researcbers to perform data reductions and statistical exami-
nations of larger sample sets allowing them to draw meaningful conclusions on students"
approacbes to learning with tbe view of improving leaming outcomes (Bootb et ai. 1999;
Davidson. 2002; Duff et al.. 2003: Gow et al.. 1994; Kember. 1995; Kob and Kob. 1999;
Lucas and Meyer. 2003; Marriott, 2002; Richardson. 2()()0).
Regardless of methodological approach (e.g., qualitative or quantitative) these studies bave
collectively revealed tbat students" approaches to learning, within higher education, bave an
impact on learning outcomes and that tbe deep approach is associated with improved leaming
(Biggs et al., 2001; Booth et al.. 1999). Further, those wbo bave examined tbe need for
change in accounting education (see AECC. 1990; Davidson. 2002 as examples) support tbe

'it should be aoted that not all researchers use the terms deep, surface and achieving students' approaches to
learning. Other researchers use other terms. However these labels were popularised by Biggs, 1978. 1987. For
a ihonnigh discussion of stiiderils' approaches lo leaming and relaied suh-ihcories see Biggs et oi. 20()l.
"It should be miicd ihal many studies continue to adopt qualitative mcibods in the quest lo more fully understand
studcnis' approaches to learning (e.g.. Cliff. 2000; Lucas. 2(XK). 2(K)1; Shaniia. 1997).
Gender and motivational differences in approaches to leaming 433

view tbat a deep approach is one way to move accounting education away from procedural lear-
ning towards tbe more desired conceptual learning (Beattie et al., 1997; Hall et at., 2004). In
addition, background cbaracteristics, such as prior leaming, age, gender, and culture
are known to influence leaming approach (Booth et al.. 1999; Duff, 1999; Gow et al.. 1994;
Mutcbler et at., 1987; Lucas and Meyer, 2003; Meyer. 1995; Severiens and ten Dam, 1997).
The primary objective of tbis investigation is to examine gender and motivational differences
in students* approaches to leaming by a cobort of open leaming^ accounting students and. in
addition, explore any of these differences using structural equation modelling (SEM) techniques.
The next section provides an overview of the theoretical background for tbis study. This is
followed by a description of the instrument and metbod and, Hnally. a discussion of tbe key
findings.

Theoretical background
Prior research in the education literature supports the notion that there are difterences in
students' approaches to learning (Biggs, 1978. 1987; Biggs et al.. 2001; Beattie et al.. 1997;
Davidson, 2002; Laurillard, 1979; Marton and Saljo. 1976. 1984; Ramsden and Entwistle,
1981; Reebling. 1980; Sbarma, 1997). Further, these differences in learning approaches are
influenced by prior learning, context of leaming and students' perceptions of tbe leaming
required. (See Ramsden's 1982 model of student learning in context or Biggs 3P model). The
Study Process Questionnaire (SPQ) measures approaches to leaming in temis of a combination
of motivation and strategy. Further motivation can indeed affect tbe strategy a student adopts in
learning (Biggs, 1987; Kember. 1995; Lucas. 2001; Ramsden, 1992; Ramsden and Entwistle,
1981).

Motivation
Tbere are numerous studies tbat link motivation to leaming outcomes for traditional students in
an on-campus environment (Bean. 1980. 1983; Biggs er«/., 2001; Davidson, 2002; Meyer. 1995;
Severiens and ten Dam. 1998; Spady. 1970; Tinto. 1993). Collectively, ibese .studies bave left
little doubt that student leaming approaches and motivation are related to tbe perceived value
of tbe course, specifically future employment prospects and personal development gained by
students (Bean. 1982; de Lange & Beaman, 1997). In relation to the link between motivation
tbat students derive from enhanced employment pro.spects. Bean and Metzner (1985, p. 522)
noted;
... practical value was the third or fourth most powerful of 10 to 14 variables in total efFect on dropout.
Bean (1982) concluded Ihal the perceived value of a college education for luture employment was an
important student attitude affecting freshman attrition at residence-oHented universities.
While the above quotation explains the effect of extrinsic motivation associated in gaining
tertiary qualifications, numerous researchers (see Busato c/«/-, 1998; Davidson. 2002; Mutchler.

Open learning is an Australian Federal govemment initiative designed to provide iiniversily access to the
Australian population at large. Il was intended to appeal to a broad constituency by utilising flexible delivery.
open access and low fee simclure tor higher education. A more comprehensive description of open learning is
included within the Method section ol this paper.
434 de Lange and Mavondo

et al. 1987) identified intrinsic motivation in university offerings. Intrinsic motivation refers to
the perceived value of tbe leaming inherent in the course, or tbe value of learning for its own
sake. That is, some students are motivated by the notion of leaming (intellectual growtb) as
opposed lo the direct link to an enhanced career and financial future (Biggs c/a/.. 2001; Severiens
and ten Dam, 1998; Spady, 1970). The theoretical aspects of student motivation identified in the
literature were developed using traditional student cohorts. Some researchers bave suggested
there is no reason why the findings sbould not be similar for mature age and open leaming
students (Bean and Metzner, 1985; Kember. 1989; Richardson. 2000). In support of this
notion, Richardson (2000) in his comprehensive research monograph, recalled several studies
conducted in tbe late 1980s and early 1990s wbicb examined studenls' approaches to learning
for Dutch and UK Open University cohorts, Specifically Richardson (2000. p. 42) noted; "It
would appear, then, that the scheme of leaming conceptions... applies to botb campus-based
and to distance-learning students".
In an attempt to idenlify tbe type of motivation tbat is most prevalent for mature-age students
re-entering and remaining in universiiy. researcb to date appears divided. Some studies have
concluded tbat older students are primarily motivated by career motives or extrinsic motivation
(de Lange and Beaman, 1997; Malin et ai, 1980). Otber researchers have concluded that
tbe reasons wby mature-age students retum to study is divided equally between personal
development (intrinsic motivation) and career aspirations (extrinsic motivation) (Kember,
1995; Reehiing. 1980).
Tbe relationship between motivation and leaming outcomes is much clearer than the exact
nature of individual motivation (intrinsic or extrinsic). Students wbo enrol in a chosen course
out of a desire to leam will most likely achieve academically as a result of their inherent interest
in tbe subject matter. Typically, these students would display a deep approach and become
involved in tbe subject matter (Fransson, 1977; Kember. 1995). On the other hand, students
who study because of vocational aspirations may adopt a surface learning approach. For these
students each task throughout tbe course could be seen as 'jumping tbrougb hoops' in order
to achieve minimum standards to satisfy course requirements (de Lange and Beaman. 1997;
Fransson, 1977).

Approaches to learning
Early works, which attempted to explain students' approaches to leaming, were restricted to tbe
domain of educational psychology. Essentially, these early theories attempted to predict
the quality of learning outcomes as measured by academic performance by examining
factors such as IQ, socio-economic status, prior knowledge and special abilities in the quest
to establish general laws (Biggs. 1987). As tbis type of research became less fashionable
otber researcb evolved which posited an association between academic achievement and
students' approaches to leaming (Biggs, 1978; Entwistle and Hounsell, 1975; Kolb, 1984).
Biggs (1987. p. 2) stated:
Students leam in the way ihey do because they construe their present situation in a way that determines
Iheir approach to the task ... Other resciirctiers lend to emplia.sise ihat learners react in a way typical
for them across situations, as well as in a way dictated by a particular situation. This view accentuate.s
the interaction between person and situation.
According to Biggs et al. (2001, p. 135) student.s' approaches to learning ' . . . are conceived as
forming part of the total system in wbicb an educational event is located, as schematised in tbe
Gender and motivational differences in approaches to learning 435

Presage-Process-Product (3P) tnodel". The .^P model fomis a holistic leaming system"* which
acknowledges the interplay of student factors, learning approaches, teaching context and
leaming outcomes (Biggs et ai, 2001).
The four major streams" of research into .students" approaches to learning which have
dominated the research agenda around the world (see Beattie et al., 1997) have identified two
main approacbes to leaming, the deep approacb and the surface approacb. Students who
adopt the deep approach to learning flesh out tbe deeper meaning in the subject matter
through wide reading on topics and/or relating studies to tbeir work environment. Conversely,
the surface approach to learning is characterised by rote leaming and completing required
academic work to gain pass grades in specific tasks.''
Biggs (1987, p. 15) noted the difterences in the deep and surface approacbes to leaming when
be wrote:

II would generally be agreed that a student who adopts a deep approach: is interested in the aeademic
task and derives enjoyment frotn carrying ii out; searches for ihe meaning inherent in the lask (if a
prose passage, the intention of ihe author); personalizes the task, making it meaningful to own
experience and the real world...

And a student who adopts a surface approach;

sees the task as a demand to be met. a necessary imposition if some other goal is to be reached
(a qualiticalion for instance): sees the aspects or pans of ihe task as di.screte and unrelated either lo
each other or to other tasks; is worried about Ihe lime a lask is taking...

Differences in the deep and surface approaches to leaming provide a link to student motivation.
Motivation is identified in tbe literature as one of tbe key sub-scales in the determination of
the quality of leaming outcomes (Biggs. 1987; Ramsden and Entwistle, 1981). Kember and
Harper (1987) explored the relationship between motivation and subsequent normative
congruence (one of tbe key variables in Tinto"s (1975) model of student withdrawal). They
found that students who used tbe surface approach in studying were more likely to withdraw
from their course of study.
As a result of increasing student numbers and participation in higher education, much of the
more recent students" approacbes to leaming reseaich bas focused on background variables such
as age and gender (Duffet ai. 2003; Waldmann and de Lange, 1996). Biggs (1987) in bis study
of traditional on campus students in Australia (n = 2365). found tbat students of different ages
and enrolment status employed different approaches to learning. In relation to study habits Biggs
(1987. p. 67) noted tbat tbe effect of the age of the students accounted for the biggest difference
in tbeir study approacb: 'Surface Approach declined from age 20 onwards, being minimal at age
40 and over, wbile Deep Approach increased strongly after 22". The relationship between
approaches to learning and demographic variables sucb as age and gender is significant

''The 3P model has been developed by Biggs and others over the last 15 years. For detailed discussion of the 3P
model see Biggs cf ai. 2(K)1.
'^BeaUie cf «/. (1997:3) idenlify the four main groups as: (1) ihe Laticaster group, led by EntwistJe; (2) the
Australian group, led by Biggs; (3) the Swedish group, led by Marton: and (4) ihe Riehmond group, led by Pask.
''The study pnx:ess questionnaire developed by Biggs produced a measure he labelled "achieving" approach,
which is used to describe students who organise their learning approach to gain the highest possible grade.
Although the achieving approach is discussed in the literature, there are doubts as to ils validity and. as such.
is not used in this study (Davidson, 2002),
436 de Lange and Mavondo

within tbe context of open leaming as most students are part-time and mature-age (Billings.
1988; Waldmann and De Lange. 1996).
While it could be concluded that the relationship between students' approaches to leaming
and quality of learning outcomes is clear-cut, where the deep approach enhances quality of
leaming and the surface approach is likely to be associated with impaired outcomes, the relation-
ship is more salienl. For example, a recent study in tbe accounting education literature by Cbou
et ai (1999, p. 79) found that 'Even though Itbe] deep processing |approachj was not detected as
significantly related to academic outcome^ in our study, this result should not undemiine the
desirability of deep processing in accounting education". While the study by Chou et al.
(1999) failed to establish the link between leaming approacb and quality of learning outcome,
other researchers wbo examined accounting cohorts found a clearer relationship between
leaming outcome and leaming approach (Chan et ai, 1989; Davidson. 2002; Gow et ai
(1994). Gow et ai (1994) reported that accounting students" propensity to engage a deep
approach was at tbeir highest in the early years of sttidy and subsequently tapered off as tbey
progressed tbrough their course.
In an attempt to add some clarity to the seemingly contradictory results reported in the exami-
nation of students" approaches to leaming within accounting cohorts, English et al. (2004) noted
the unique contribution of tbe study by Hall et al. (2004) wbicb reports on the outcomes of a
changed learning environment which involved a large reliance on group activities. The instruc-
tion mode for tbe unit required students to work on three group activities designed to promote a
deep approacb. To measure tbe influence of tbe intervention, tbe Biggs (1987) SPQ was
employed in a pre- and post-test setting to measure the change in ieaming approach over the
unit (one semester). After analysing their 159 responses. Hall et ai reported tbat. as a result
of their instructional intervention, accounting students significantly increased their use of a
deep approacb but did not significantly reduce their use of surface strategies. Furtber. wbile
these findings were not as expected (students" use of surface strategies did not decrease) the
results appear to be consistent witb other plausible explanations put forth by Birkett and Mlade-
novic (2002) and English et al. (2004) in relation to students" approacbes to leaming for account-
ing coborts.
Botb papers argue tbat some low level competencies in many disciplines, accounting
included, can be effectively learned with lower level strategies (for example, rote leaming,
parapbrasing and describing) and these lower level strategies could be used as part of a deep
approach to learning. Specifically, Hall et ai (2004) noted that accounting students progress
through stages in their development. First they must leam terminology, basic concepts and rules
of debit and credit before being able to apply knowledge to unique problems and reflect/evaluate
on the appropriateness of various treatments and metbods. The results of their investigation indi-
cated that, as a consequence of changing the teaching approach, students scored bigber on the
use of deep strategies witbout a corresponding decrease in tbe use of lower level strategies
(surface approacb, as measured by tbe SPQ). These studies collectively reveal innovative teach-
ing is able to promote enhanced learning wbere students blend lower level strategies with the use
of deep strategies to give meaning and understanding to their ieaming.

Prior studies have generally used academic outcome as the dependent variable and Ihis is most often measured
by Ihe change in academic grade or GPA (Duff et al., 2003; Kember, 1995; Koh and Koh. 1999).
Gender and motivational differences in approaches to learnitig 437

Gender differences in learning approaches

Most studies wbich explore student learning approacbes partition their data on tbe basis of
gender (Biggs. 1987; Bootb et ai. 1999; Carpenter et «/.. 1993; Duff et ai, 2003; Gow et ai,
1994; Lipe. 1989; Lucas and Meyer. 2(X)3; Meyer. 1995; Mutchler c/a/.. 1987). Some researcbers
who report tbe results of partitioning students on tbe basis of gender have revealed males
and females have different approaches to learning. Specifically. Booth et ai (1999) in their
examination of the students" approaches to leaming from four different faculties (N = 374) in
an Australian university found significant differences in the mean scores obtained by males
and females, with females recording higher scores on a deep approach compared with males.
However. Richardson (20(X)) and Meyer (1995) bave cautioned researcbers against reporting
findings from descriptive statistics on responses given in students" approacbes to leaming
inventories, as these result.s may not present an accurate account of learning differences. In
an effort to unravel tbe complexity inberent in complex data sets Ricbardson (2000, p. 185)
suggests: ' . . . the most common analytic technique is that of factor analysis. Tbis kind of tech-
nique should always be carried out when a questionnaire is employed...". An exatnination of the
studies, which examine students' approaches to leaming in accounting education literature
suggests many of the major conclusions are drawn from descriptive statistics which calls into
question tbe generality of tbeir findings (Bootb et ai, 1999; Gow et ai. 1994; Marriott, 2002;
Naserand Peel, 1998).
A particularly well designed .study by Meyer (1995) concluded that, while tnany studies that
use inventories to support the contention of gender differences in students' approacbes to
ieaming. suggests tbat many of tbese differences are an artefact of data reduction tecbniques
rather tban any substantive gender differences. Meyer (p. 212) tben goes on to suggest that
'there is a clear need to empirically model sucb aspects of variation as are of interest, and
tbereby attempt to locate individual responses within empirical structures in a manner that
can inform diagnostic and intervention concerns."
To funher support Meyer"s conclusions, Richardson and King (1998) in tbeir overall synthesis
of the literature regarding the influence of gender on leaming approach, felt able to claim there
are no overall differences in leaming approach between gender groups in bigher education. Of
interest to the current investigation. Richardson (2000, p. 184) suggested: "... it would seem tbat
[genderl differences may arise in particular situations and it would be of interest in future
researcb to determine wbicb properties of situations lead to sucb an outcome**." In view of
findings in tbe literature which suggest that tbe 'jury is still out on gender differences", and
the fact that little research was located which comprehensively explores relationships
between gender and leaming approacb for non-traditional business student cohorts, tbe
following research questions are proposed.

Research questions
a. Is tbe model for students' approaches to learning, as measured by motivation, the same
for male and female open leaming students?

*'A recent study by Lucas and Meyer (2003) sought student conceptions of leaming in an aceounting unit
(N = 1200). They reported a number of inieresting observations in their study which indicated female accounting
students arc more likely U) display deep-fevel processing.
1
438 de Lctnge and Mavondo

b. If the model derived in (a) is essentially the same, what are tbe similarities and
differences across gender with reference to regression weights?

Research method
Sample
This study involved students who were enrolled witb Open Learning Australia (OLA). OLA was
established in 1993 by tbe Federal Govemment as a public educational provider for individuals
unable or unwilling to gain a place in mainstream universities. Examinations of the OLA
business student cohort bave indicated that courses provided by the OLA attract primarily
adults who find the time flexibility of open leaming studies convenient to tbeir way of life
(Atkinson et ai, 1996: de Lange et ai, 1997).
OLA bas formulated a number of policies that address the educational needs of adults retur-
ning to study. Most notably, non-competitive entry, four semesters per year, and deferred
payment of fees through HECS^ are designed to encourage a diverse range of students to
participate as OLA"s llexibility accommodates study with work and otber commitments
(Open Learning Handbook, 2001). All business units are offered by distance mode using a
combination of electronic and print material, televised lectures via the Australian Broadcasting
Corporation (ABC), and the availability of telephone and e-mail tutoring on an individual basis.
Numerous researchers have noted that some studies wbicb examine the roles of students,
learning approacbes and outcomes, are conducted using a specific, narrow group of students
(i.e., first year undergraduates), which limits the generality of the results of these studies
(Busato et ai, 1998; Duff et al., 2003: Tinto. 1993; Sweet, 1986). To minimise the impact of
problems associated with restricted cross-sectional sampling techniques such as these, this
investigation drew its sample from students in various stages of progress in their course. As a
consequence, tbe sample for the present investigation comprised undergraduate business
students (N — 490) enrolled in four units, two of which were specialist accounting units
(ACCi2 and ACC3I In = 3001) and two compulsory specialist marketing units (MARI I and
MAR32 fn = 190]). Tbe sample was drawn from a broad range of students at various stages
within tbeir course (i.e.. early in their course and well advanced in their course). This sample
was selected to ensure the diverse nature and characteristics of the sample were captured.
Students were mailed a self-report questionnaire and a stamped self-addressed envelope for
return of the completed survey. After two reminder letters, 246 useable surveys were returned.
This sample represents a 50% response rate, which is acceptable and consistent witb other
studies of a similar nature (Kember, 1995; Sweet, 1986).

Student demographics
Demographic statistics sbow that over half of the respondents were female (53%), wbicb
is somewhat consistent with national mainstream university participation within Australia
(Atkinson el ai, 1996; Department of Education Science & Training IDEST], 2(K)2). Age

'Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS) is a means by which studenls enrolled for Higher Education are
able 10 defer (he paymcnl of course lees unlil stii;h lime us they ^rc deemed able to aftbrd payment. Effectively, the
HECS scheme is a student loan scheme landed by Ihe Australiiin Federal Govemment.
Gender and tnotivational differences in approaches to learning 439

distributions revealed a mature age cohort witb 54% aged between 25 and 35 years of age. and
overall ages ranging from 18 to over 45 years. The majority of students indicated their intended
specialisation is Accounting (44%). with 20% of students intending to complete Marketing or
Management specialisations. More than half of the sample (61%) was employed in allied
clerical/professional fields. Tbe majority of the cohort (64%) were attempting tertiary education
for the first time, and 16% of respondents were using open leaming studies to gain entry and
subsequent credits for otber tertiary courses.

The survey
The variables tested in the model are similar to those developed in the study process question-
naire (SPQ) by Biggs (1987) and modified to suit an open learning cohort by Kember (1995).
The SPQ in its original form was a 42-item instrument. This has been subsequently retined in
an eftbrt to improve its reliability and validity. The latest version is a collaborative effort by
Biggs et ai (2001) and is known as the R^SPQ-2F.
For tbis study tbe variables identified in Kember"s (1995) study are of most interest. Tbese
include: demographic characteristics, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, deep and surface approach
to learning, grade point average, and outcome. The items selected Ibr inclusion were based on tbe
reliability estimates reported by Kember (1995) in bis model of student progress. A 50-item
sell-report survey was refined from the survey originally used by Kember (1995). For example,
an additional question wa.s included to allow students to indicate their intended study major
(ie.. Accounting, Marketing, etc.) This revised survey was pre-tested on a sample of students.
This resulted in minor changes to the wording of some items to eliminate confusion prior to final
distribution.
The questionnaire consisted of two main sections. Section 1 comprised 38 single line questions
that tested tbe four independent variables under examination, namely: intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation, deep and surface learning approach. Respondents indicated their preferences on a
5 point Likert scale, anchored 1 — "Strongly Agree' to 5 — 'Strongly Disagree". Section 2
comprised twelve questions which identified entry characteristics, number of units completed,
and GPA. Respondents were also given adequate space to comment on aspects of tbeir study
via open leaming. ,

Units studied by respondents

Most researchers wbo examine tbe relationships between students' motivation, students'
approaches to leaming and academic achievement are examining models which are longitudinal
by design (see Biggs, 1987) in that they attempt to identify and develop theory for all .student
populations throughout the duration of a course of study, three to six years (Sweet, 1986;
Tinto. 1993). During tbese years of study, the factors wbicb drive motivation and learning
approach, are likely to change (Booth et ai. 1999: Busato et ai. 1998; Kember. 1995: Tinto.
1975, 1993). A number of researchers have noted that changing aspects of students' lives
may alter their approaches to leaniing (see Duff et ai. 2003). Although a longitudinal survey
of students was not possible in an effort to capture some of these changes over time, tbe
cobort for tbis investigation was drawn from a range of students in first, second, and final years.
In an effort to capture the motivators and learning approaches of the cobort early in
their period of study, the two units titled Accounting Principles and Procedures (ACCI2) and
440 de Lange and Mavondo

Marketing Theory and Practice (MARIl) were surveyed. These units are both prerequisites
for the Bachelor of Business degree offered by OLA. These units are at first year level
and are offered four times per year, with enrolments of approximately 1500 per annum. As
these units are pre-requisites for otber units they are normally studied in tbe early stages of
the program. By contrast. Issues In Competitive Advantage (MAR32) and Auditing (ACC31)
are specialist units selected by individual students to suit their intended study major (Open
Learning Handbook, 2001). For example, ACC3I is a third year specialist accounting unit for
those students intending to complete an Accounting major. As these units bave prerequisites
they are generally attempted later in a course of study. The motivators and learning approach
profile of tbese students is representative of tbe cbaracteristics of open learning students well
advanced in tbeir study. Drawing the sample from various stages within a course of study has
allowed tbe researchers to identify a broad range of re.spondents wbo are not limited to any parti-
cular sub-group (Busato et ai. 1998; Tinto, 1993).

Data analysis
To facilitate efficient data analysis, data were coded into the Statistical Packages for Social
Sciences (SPSS) version 10 and SEM in AMOS version 4 was performed (Arbuckle, 1996).
SEM uses maximum likelibood estimation to produce measurement models that test associations
among variables. In order to access tbe fit of the model(s) a number of fit statistics are reported
(Arbuckle, 1996). In order to make an as.sessment of tbe models presented in tbis study the
Chi-square ix^)- Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), Norm Fitted Index (NFl), Tucker-Lewis Index
(TLI), Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and others arc reported. Statisticians suggest in tbe
absence of precise standards for fit statistics tbe GFI, NFI, TLI and CFI sbould exceed 0.9
(Arbuckie. 1996: Vandenberg and Lance, 2000). Data analysis was aimed at addressing the
research questions posed for tbis investigation. A diagrammatic representation of tbe conceptual
model of student leaming approach to be tested is represented in Fig. I.

Results and discussion

The regression model, comparing gender differences on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and
their effects on surface and deep approacbes to learning, appears to be supported with all
measurement statistics above the critical level for rejection (see Table 1) (Marsb et ai, 1998;
Vandenberg and Lance. 2000). From this unsophisticated observation it would be fair to
conclude that the model developed in this study supports research question (a). That is, the
model adequately represents students" approaches to leaming of both female and male accoun-
ting students. However, this apparent lack of significant differences bides substantive differences
in the regression coefficients and in the measurement model.
An examination of the model reveals tbat, for male students, intrin.sic motivation is positively
associated witb surface leaming (p < 01). This finding is contrary to expectations, as prior studies
would suggest a positive association between intrinsic motivation and a deep approach (Biggs.
1987; Bootb et ai, 1999). The reason for this result may be that male students, although intrinsi-
cally motivated, tend to adopt a surface learning approach due to work pressures and family com-
mitments (Kember, 1995). This notion is supported by tbe differences in working bours and levels
of seniority reported by respondents in this study. Specifically, male respondents indicated that
Gender and motivational differences in approaches to learning 441

SURFACE V-(ey2 )
EXTRINSIC
^^MOTIVATIO

Fig. I. Conceptual model of leaming motivation and appmach to studying.

Notes: Tbe variables in circle.s are latent variables, in rectangles are the 'item parcels' created by
dividing the observed variables for each latent variable into two subscales, el-e8 are the unique
errors associated with each 'item parcel' (i.e. the proportion not explained by the latent factor).
Tbe labels eyi and ey2 represent the proportion of the variance in the dependent variables. Deep
Approach and Surface Approach, attributed to other factors not in the model.

they spent a greater number of hours in paid employment than did females. This latter observation
is of interest and could be more tborougbly explored in future research.
For female students the results are more consistent with extant research (Gow el ai, 1994).
However, the collorary hypothesis is not supported for male students since the results suggest
442 de Latige arui Mavondo

Table 1, Scmdardised regressions and chi-square differences

Siguilicant
Association Male Eemail' differences (Y/N)

y (structural model)
Extrinsic motivation is 0.703 (e.iMS"'*) n.333 (2.781'') A/ (3.36) (A df (1)
positively associated p > 0.90
with surface approach
Intrinsic motivation is 0.319 (3.404**) 0.139 (0.879 NS) A;^ (1.82) (A df (I)
negatively associated p>0.90
with surface approach
Intrinsic motivation is 0.616 (5.235)*** 0.672 (2.589**) A;f (3.98) (A df (!)
positively associated p < 0.05
with deep approach
Extrinsic motivation is 0.437 (2.284*) 0.435 {1.579^) A / (1.1 ()) (A df (1)
negatively associated p > 0.90
with deep approacb
Surtace approach is - 0.102 ( - .488 NS) 0.360 (1.476 NS) No test necessary
negatively associated
with a deep approach
Intrinsic motivation is 0.098 (0.892 NS) - 0 . 7 0 3 (-5.683***) A;^^ (22.38)(A df (1)
negatively correlated p < 0.001
with extrinsic motivation
A (measurement model)
intrinsic 1 *— intrinsic 0.954 (13.800*-) 0.602 (5.965"'";
motivation
intrinsic 2 <— intrinsic 0.651 (7.604***) 0.585 (6.011'*"; (26.67) (A df (4)
niotivaiion p < 0.001
extrinsic! *- extrinsic 0.631 (8.895***) 0.818 (7.309***)
motivation
extrinsic2 *— extrinsic 0.759 (8.129***) 0.548 (5.589***] (16.97) (A df (4)
motivation p < O.OOl
deepl *— deep approach 0.883 0.505
deep2 •«— deep approach 0.803 (7.961***) 0.244 (2.070*) (33.01) (A df(3)
p < 0.00!
Surfl •«— surface approach 0.803 0,758
Surf2 •*— suriace approach 0.850 (6.670***) (32.58) (A df (3)
p < 0.001
Model fit statistics
33.837
df 25
Cmin/df 1.353
GFI 0.968
AGFT 0.907
NFI 0.993
TLI 0.994
CFI 0.998
RMSEA 0.038

Moles: ""'Signihcanl at p < 0.001. ^'Significant al P<O.OI. 'Significani at p < 0.05, :j:SigDi&(^iit at p < 0 . l .
Gender and motivational differences in approaches to leaming 443

that, even if male students are extrinsically motivated, they may still engage in a deep approach.
This suggests that the pressures to enrol and pursue open learning studies may be external for
male students and, once in the programme, they may engage with their studies. This could be
a result of fear of failure, enhanced promotional opportunities, and the need to recover invest-
ment in time and other resources.
The results further suggest that the associations between intrinsic motivation and extrinsic
motivation across the gender groups are different (p <0.001). For male students there is no
significant relationship (p >0.70) while for females the association is signilicant (p <0.0()l)
and the relationships are in different directions. This is contrary to theory, which suggests a
strong negative correlation (Biggs. 1987; Biggs et ai, 2001: Kember. 1995). That is to .say.
researchers in the past who have examined gender along with other variables (i.e., prior
education, work experience, age and mathematics background to name a few) have reported
that different genders have different conceptions and approaches to Ieaming (see Best, 2001;
Biggs, 1987: Duff ei ai. 2003; Lucas and Meyer, 2003; Severiens and ten Dam. 1998), and
researchers have partitioned their cohorts by gender and drawn conclusions on the basis of
gender partitioning (Booth et ai. 1999).
Results of this investigation suggest that males do not fit neatly into the theorised model,
specifically, male students can live with inconsistencies or contradictions associated with
differences in sources of study motivation. Other researchers have also discovered the apparent
inconsistencies (see Birkett and Mladenovic 2002: Davidson. 2002; English ct ai, 2(K)4; Hall
el ai, 2004; Trigwel! and Prosser, 1991) who collectively found high academic achievement
can be associated with a surface approach when leaming fundamental principles if the instructor
clearly articulated the relevance of the subject matter. On the other hand, responses from female
studentsareconsistent with theory (Booth f/«/.. 1999; Biggs (^/«/.. 2001; Ram.sden. 1992). That
is. findings here indicate there is a strong negative correlation between intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation. One plausible explanation may be that, when female students decide to participate
in higher education, they have a clearer and more focused understanding of the programme
expectations compared with their male counterparts. This latter finding is of interest and
would appear to challenge other de.scriptions of students" approaches to leaming for accounting
students (Hall et ai, 2004). However, it should be noted that findings presented here emerge
from examination of an open learning cohort, which has different characteristics from an on-
campus cohort which is wortliy of further investigation.

Conclusions and implications

The structural equation model presented in this study supports the proposition that .students'
approaches to learning are influenced by gender and motivation. Further, prima facie, the
same model is applicable to male and female students. However, consistent with other
researchers (see Lucas and Meyer, 2003; Meyer. 1995; Meyer et ai, 1994; Severiens and ten
Dam. 1998; Richardson, 2000), closer examination of the models shows there are significant
differences both in the strengths of relationships among the variables and in the measurement
models of the key constructs. Findings in this study indicate there may be significant gender
differences in the relationships between learning approaches and study motivation (e.g. Koh
and Koh, 1999; Meyer. 1995). Moreover, in order to promote a deep approach and improved
educational outcomes as identilied in earlier sections of this paper, it would be appropriate
for educators to devise gender-specific strategies in an effort to enhance leaming outcomes
444 de Lange arui Mavondo

for the entire cohort. This ob.servation has implications for educators as they tend to plan lessons
that are gender neutral and assume the pedagogy/an drag ogy will be effective for both males
and females. Severeins and ten Dam (1998) lament this view in their theoretical synthesis of
two general theories on learning * and instruction. They suggested that, within the domain of
gender and teaming, '[tlhe fact that former experiences may differ for women and men
due to the socialisation processes is often acknowledged but not translated into theoretical
frameworks and the research instmments used. In fact, it often seems gender is just another
background variable" (p. 329).
Results of this investigation also lend support to alternate plausible explanations for gender
differences in students" approaches to leaming. That is, researchers tend to as.sume differences
in responses by gender groups on self-report questionnaires are a product of gender per se
and not some inherent bias in the instrument (Best, 2001; K.oh and Koh, 1999; Meyer. 2(X)0;
Richardson. 2000; Severiens and ten Dam, 1997). Richardson (2000. p. 185) noted some of
the methodological concerns inherent in self-report questionnaires when he stated: '(t)he fact
tbat the responses given to forma! questionnaires can be coded and aggregated in a quantitative
manner does not mean that they can be regarded as objective or unbiased measures of some
underlying p.sychological reality". While an examination of this statement .suggests Richardson
is a suppwrter of quantitative research methodologies. Richardson (2000, p. 185) went on to
state: "(ajccordingiy, the responses given to questionnaires on studetit leaming always stand
in need of analysis and interpretation'.
Findings in this study are consistent with tbose of Meyer (1995) which suggests that the
.sources of differences in learning approach and motivation between male and female students
may be in tbe ways in which they understood the questionnaire and conceptualised the con-
structs under consideration. This is akin to holding a parti ally-filled glass of water before an
audience and posing the question, is the glass half-full or half-empty? The responses of the
audience will depend on their conceptual frame or how they view the glass of water. The chal-
lenge for the researcher is to try and attach meaning to the varied responses to seemingly
simple unambiguous questions. The fundamental issue is tbat some significant differences,
where gender is an independent variable, may be as a result of different perceptions to
seemingly gender-neutral concepts (Meyer. 1995; Richardson, 2000; Severiens and ten
Dam, 1995).
Finally, the credibility of research is established when its findings can be generalised to other
populations. Findings reported in this investigation come from a single cohort of predominately
accounting students studying via open leaming. This approach, coupled with a relatively small
sample (N = 243). indicates the cohort shares a common study goal, namely the pursuit of
a vocationally focused business education. It would be interesting to test the validity of
tbe model using different students" approaches to learning inventories on larger samples
in other cultural contexts (Bagozzi and Edwards. 1998; Vandenberg and Lance, 2000). In
addition, further qualitative research which examines the unexpected association for males
between intrinsic motivation and surface approacb could provide valuable insights, as
would the development of inventories that consider gender specific issues when developing
items.

'"Severiens and ten Dam (1998) compare Vermunt's leaming conceptions (1996) and Baxter Magolda's ways of
knowing and paltems of reasoning (1992).
Gender and motivational differences in approaches to leaming 445

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge the guest editors of this special issue—Rosina Mladenovic and
Ursula Lucas—and the two anonymous reviewers, for tbeir constructive comments on earlier
versions of tbis manuscript.

References
Accounting Education Change Commission (AECC) (1990) Objectives of education for accountants:
position statement number one, /s.\ues in Accounting Education 5 (2), 307-12.
Albrecht, S. and Sack, R., (20(X)) Accounting Education: Charting the Course Through a Perilous
Future. Sara.sota, FL: American Accounting Association (Accounting Education Series Vol. 16).
Arbuckle, J.L. (1996) AMOS. Version 3.6. Chicago, IL: SmallWaters Corporation.
Atkinson. E., Conboy, I., Atkinson, J., Dodds, A. and Mclnnis. C. (1996) Evaluation of the Open
Learning Initiative: Tertiary Access Through a National Brokerage Agency. Melbourne:
Centre for the Study of Higher Education, Melboume University.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Edwards, J.R. (1998) A general approach tor representing constructs in
organisational research. Organisational Re.search Methods 1(1). 45-87.
Bean. J.P. (1980) Dropouts and turnover: the synthesis and test of a causal mode of student attrition.
Research in Higher Education 12, 155-87.
Bean, J.P. (1982) Student attrition, intentions and confidence: interaction effects in a path model,
Re.search in Higher Education 17. 291-320.
Bean, J.P. (1983) The application of a model of turnover in work organisations to the student attrition
process. Review of Higher Education 6. 129-48.
Bean, J.P. and Metzner. B.S. (1985) A conceptual model of non-traditional undergraduate student
attrition. Review of Educational Research 55 (4), 485-540.
Beattie, V., Collins, B. and Mclnnes. B. (1997) Deep and surface leaming: a simple or simplistic
d i c h o t o m y ? . Accounting Education: an international journal 6 ( 1 ) . 1 - 1 2 .
Berry, A. (1993) Encouraging group skills in accountancy students: an innovative approach,
Accounting Education: an international journal 2 (3), 169-79.
Best, D. (2001) Gender concepts: convergence in cross-cultural research and methodologies.
Cross-cultural Research 35 (1). 2 3 - 4 3 .
Biggs, J.B. (1978) Individual and group differences in study processes, Briti.ih Joumal of Educational
Psychology 48, 266-79,
Biggs, J.B. (1987) Student Approache.s to Studying and Learning. Research Monograph. Melbourne:
Australian Council for Educational Research.
Biggs, J.B., Kember, D, and Leung, D.Y.P (2001) The revi.sed two-factor study process questionnaire:
R S P Q - 2 F , The British Joumal of Educational Psychology 171 ( I ) , 1 3 3 - 4 7 .
Billings, D.M. (1988) A conceptual model of correspondence course completion. The American
Journal of Distance Education 1 (2), 23-35.
Birkett, W. and Mladenovic, R. (2(K)2) The approaches to leaming paradigm: theoretical and empiri-
cal issues for accounting education research. Paper presented at AFAANZ Annual Meeting.
Perth WA, 3 - 7 July, 1-40.
Booth, P., Luckett, P. and Mladenovic, R. (1999) The quality of leiiming in accounting education:
the impact of approaches to leaming on academic performance. Accounting Education: an
international journal 8 (4), 277-300.
Busato. V.V.. Prins, F.J., Elshout, J.J. and Hamaker. C. (1998) Learning styles: a cross-sectional
and longitudinal study in higher education, British Journal of Educational Psychology 68 (3),
427-41.
Campbell, J. and Lewis, W. (1991) Using cases in accounting classes, l.ssues in Accotmiing Education
6 (2), 276-83.
446 de Lange and Mavondo

Carpenter. V.L.. Friar, S. and Lipe, M.G. (1993) Evidence on the performance of accounting students:
race, gender, and expectations, l.ssue.s in Accotinting Educatitm 8(1). 1-17.
Chan, D., Leung, R.. Gow, L. and Hu. S. (1989) Approaches to ieaming of accountancy students:
some additional evidence. In Proceedings of the ASAIHL Seminar on University Education in
the l990*s, pp. 186-93. 4 - 7 December. Kuala Lumpar. Bangi Singapore: Pencrbit Universiii
Kebangsaan.
Chou. T.. Taylor. D. and Su, H. (1999) TTie effects of leaming tendencies, learning approaches and
leaming habits on academic achievement: evidence from Taiwanese college accounting students.
Conference Proceedings from the 8" Annual Teaching and Leaming Forum. The University of
Western Australia, 3 - 4 February, 7 6 - 8 1 .
Clilf, A.F. (2000) Dissonance in first-year students' reflections on their leaming, European Joumal of
Psychology of Education XV ( I ) , 4 9 - 6 0 .
Davidson, R.A. (2002) Relationship of study approach and exam performance. Journal of Accounting
Education 20 (I). 2 9 - 4 4 .
de Lange. P.A. and Beaman. I. (1997) Perfonnance assessment of graduate accounting students:
A comparative evaluation. Accounting Forum 21 (3), 283-96.
de Lange, P.A., Waldmann, E. and Wyatt. K. (1997) Personal characteristics and academic achieve-
ment of undergraduate accounting students studying through open learning, Accounling
Education: an international journal 6 (4), 295-306.
Department of Education. Science and Training (DEST) (2002). Striving for Quality: Learning,
Teaching and Scholarship. Canberra: AGPS.
Duff, A. (1999) Access policy and approaches to leaming. Accounting Education: an international
journal 9 (2), 99-1 \l).
Duff, A., Boyle, E., Dunleavy, K. and Ferguson, J. (2004) The relationship between personality.
approach to learning and academic performance, Persotudiry and individual difference 36 (8),
1-26.
English, L., Luckett. P. and Mladenovic, R. (2004) Encouraging a deep approach through curriculum
design. Accounting Education: an international journal 13 (4), 461 - 8 7 .
Entwistle. N. and Hounsell. D. (eds) (1975) How Students Learn. Readings in Higher Education.
Lancaster: Institute for Research and Development in Post Compulsory Education, University
of Lancaster.
Entwi.stle, N. and Ramsden. P. (1983) Understanding Student Learning. London: Croom Helm.
Fransson, A. (1977) On qualitative differences in leaming. IV—effects of intrinsic motivation and test
anxiety on process and outcome, British Joumal of Educational P.sychology 47. 244-57.
Gow L., Kember. D. and Cooper, B. (1994) The teaching context and approaches tostudy of accoun-
tancy students, issues in Accounling Education 9(1), 118-30.
Hall, M.. Ramsay. A. and Raven, J. (2004) Changing the leaming environment to promote deep leam-
ing approaches in first-year accounting students. Accounting Education: an international joumal
U (4). 489-505.
Institute of Chartered Accountants in Au.stralia (ICAA) (1994) Chartered accountants in the 2F'
Century: A Report of the 21"' Century Task Force. Sydney: ICAA.
Kember. D. (1989) An illustration, with case .studies, of a linear process model of drop-out from
distance education. Distance Education 10 (2). 196-211.
Kember. D. (1995) Open Leaming Courses for Adults: A Model of Student Progress. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Kember, D. and Harper, G. (1987) Implications for instruction arising from tbe relationship between
approaches to studying and academic outcomes, Instructional Science 16 (I), 35-52.
Koh. Y.K. and Koh, C.H. (1999) The determinanLs of performance in an accountancy degree
programme. Accounting Education: an international journal 8 (I) 1 3 - 2 9 .
Kolb, D.A. (1984) Experiential Learning: E.xperietue as the Source of Learning and Development.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Gender and motivational differences in approaches to learning 447

Laurillard. D. (1979) The processes of student leaming. Higher Education 8, 395-409.

Lipe, M.G. (1989) Further evidence on the performance of female versus male accounting students.
Issues in Accounting Education 4(1). 144-52.
Lucas, U. (2000) Worlds apart: students" experiences of leaming introductory accounting. Critical
Perspectives on Accounting 11 (4), 479-504,
Lucas, U. (2001) Deep and surface approaches lo learning within introductory accounting: a pheno-
menographic study./^frc/Hn/m^' Education: an international joumal 10 (2), 161-184.
Lucas, U. and Meyer, J.H.F. (2003) Understanding students' conceptions of leaming and subject in
"introductory" courses: the case of introductory accounting. Paper presented at the Sympositim
'Metalearning in Higher Education: Taking Accounting of the Student Perspective". European
As.sociation for Research on Learning and Instmction, l()"' Biennial conference, Padova, August.
Malin, J.T., Bray, J.H., Dougherty, T,W. and Skinner, W.K. (1980) Factors aflecting the perfomiance
and .satisfaction of adult men and women attending college. Research in Higher Education 13.
115-30.
Marriott, P. (2002) A longitudinal study of undergraduate accounting students' leaming style
preferences at two UK universities. Accounting Education: em international joumal 11 ( I ) ,
43-62.
Marsh, H.W., Hau. K.T, Balla. J.R. and Grayson, D. (1998) Is more ever too much.' The number of
indicators per factor in confirmatory factor analysis, Multivariate Behavioural Research 33,
181-220.
Marton, F. and Saljo, R. (1976) On qualitative dilTerences in leaming, outcome and process. British
Journal of Educational Psychology 46, 4 - 1 1 .
Marton. F. and Saljo, R. (1984) Approaches to leaming. In F. Marton et ai (eds). Edinburgh: Scottish
Academic Press.
Meyer, J.H.F. (1995) Gender-group differences in the learning behaviour of entering tirst-year
university students. Higher Education 29, 201-15.
Meyer, J.H.F. (2(K)0) The modelling of 'dissonant' study orchestration in higher education, European
Joumal of Psychology of Education XV ( I ) , 5 - 1 7 .
Meyer, J.H.F., Dunne, T.T. and Richardson, J.T.E. (1994) A gender comparison of contextualised
study behaviour in higher education. Higher Education 11. 469-85.
Mutchler, J. F., Turner, J.H. and Williams, D.D. (1987) The performance of female versus male
accounting students, issues in Accounting Education 2(2). 103- 11.
Naser, K. and Peel. M.N. (1998) An exploratory study of the impact of intervening variables
on student performance in a principles-of-accounting course. Accounting Education: an
international joumal 1 (3), 209-223.
Open Learning Handbook (2001) Melboume: Open Leaming Agency of Australia Ply Ltd.
Pask, G. (1976) Styles and strategies of leaming, British Joumal of Educational Psychology 46,
4-11.
Ramsden, P. (1992) Learning to Teach in Higher Educatitm. London: Routledge.
Ramsden, P. and Eniwistle, N. (1981) Effects of academic departments on students' approaches to
studying. British Joumal of Educational P.sychotogy 51. 368-83.
Reehling. J. E. (1980) They are retuming: but are they staying?, Joumal of College Student Person-
nel. 21, 491-97.
Richardson, J.T.E. (2000) Researching Student Learning: Approaches to Studying in Campus-ba.wd
and Distance-education. Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education and
Open University Press.
Richardson. J.T.E. and King, E. (1998) Adult .student in higher education: burden or boom?. Journal
of Higher Edtwation 69, 65-8.
Severiens, S.E. and ten Dam, G.T.M. (1997) Gender and gender identity differences in leaming styles.
Educational Psychology 17 (1-2), 79-93.
448 de Lange ami Mavondo

Severiens, S.E. and ten Dam, G.T.M. (1998) Gender and leaming: comparing two theories. Higher
Education 35, 329-50.
Sharma, D.S. (1997) Accounting students' leaming conceptions, approaches to learning, and the
influence of the leaming-teaching context on approaches to leaming. Accounting Education:
an international joumal 6 (2), 1 2 5 - 4 6 .
Spady. W. (1970) Dropouts from higher education: an interdisciplinary review and synthesis.
Interchange 1, 64-85.
Sweet, R. (1986) Student dropout in distance education: an application of Tinto's model. Distance
Education 7 (2). 201-13.
Tinto, V, (1975) Dropout Irom higher education: theoretical synthesis of recent research, Review of
Edttcationat Re.search 45. 109-21.
Tinto, V. (1993) Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition. 2nd edn.
Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Trigweil. K. and Prosser. M. (1991) Relating approaches lo study and quality of learning outcomes
at the course level, British Journal of Education Psychology 61, 265-75.
Vandenberg, R.J. and Lance, C.E. (20(X)) A review and synthesis of measurement invariance litera-
ture: suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organisational research. Organisational
Re.search Methods 3(1), 4-69.
Waldmann. E. and de Lange. P. (1996) Perfonnance of business undergraduates studying through
open leaming: a comparative analysis. Accounting Education: an international joumal 5(1),
25-33.