Educational Research

ISSN: 0013-1881 (Print) 1469-5847 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rere20

Targeting efficient studying – first-semester

psychology students’ experiences

Maria Öhrstedt & Max Scheja

To cite this article: Maria Öhrstedt & Max Scheja (2017): Targeting efficient studying
– first-semester psychology students’ experiences, Educational Research, DOI:
10.1080/00131881.2017.1406314

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2017.1406314

Published online: 27 Nov 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 4

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rere20

Download by: [University of New England] Date: 29 November 2017, At: 08:19
 Educational Research, 2017
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2017.1406314

Targeting efficient studying – first-semester psychology

students’ experiences
Maria Öhrstedta  and Max Schejab 
a
Department of Psychology, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden; bDepartment of Education, Stockholm
University, Stockholm, Sweden
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 08:19 29 November 2017

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Background: How students go about studying, including the learning Received 20 December 2016
activities that students engage in both during and between classes, Accepted 14 November 2017
is not easily understood. Previous research indicates that critical
KEYWORDS
student features, such as approaches to learning and decisions of how Approaches to learning;
to organise studying activities, develop in bidirectional interactions studying activities;
between personal and learning environmental factors. However, student perspective;
attempts to influence students’ studying activities in certain directions psychology student; target
by manipulating the learning environment often prove unsuccessful. understanding
A deeper analysis of the student perspective is needed, since students’
subjective perceptions of the learning environment to a great extent
will influence their individual ways of going about studying and
learning. In particular, we need to clarify which aspects steer students
towards focusing on certain studying activities in a particular course
context.
Purpose: This study aimed at elaborating the student perspective of
the process of selection of studying activities. It did this by searching
for similarities in references to factors perceived as guiding this
process among students representing very different combinations
of approaches to learning.
Sample, design and methods:  Students’ approaches to learning
were evaluated with the Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for
Students (ASSIST) in two successive psychology introductory courses
(N = 261). A random (N = 5) and a purposive (N = 6) student sample
was then selected and interviewed. Seven of the students also took
part in follow-up interviews six months later. The qualitative analysis
aimed at mapping and extracting similarities in students’ perceptions
of, and dealing with, the selection of studying activities.
Results: Despite considerable differences in students’ approaches to
learning and reported studying activities, all students interviewed
referred to a common set of reference points perceived as guiding
their ways of studying, i.e. their perception of (1) previous studying
experiences, (2) course recommendations, (3) learning outcomes, (4)
assessment demands and (5) time and effort spent on studying.
Conclusions: We suggest that students’ selection of studying activities
may be seen as a process of negotiation based on input from certain
reference points. In the course context under study, the targeting
process resulted in a general homogenisation of studying activities
and permitted students to feel they were studying efficiently. Although

CONTACT  Maria Öhrstedt  maria.ohrstedt@psychology.su.se

© 2017 NFER
 2   M. ÖHRSTEDT AND M. SCHEJA

possible generalisation of the results remains to be investigated, it

is suggested that understanding students’ perceptions of reference
points and general understanding of the targeting process could
contribute to a better grasp of how student factors, course contexts
and students’ perceptions of these, interact.

Introduction
How students go about studying, including the learning activities that students engage in
both during and between classes, is not easy to predict and understand. It can create chal-
lenges for teachers and educational researchers. However, a deeper understanding of how
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 08:19 29 November 2017

students prefer to set about studying in particular educational settings is needed to develop
powerful learning environments (Vermetten, Vermunt, and Lodewijks 2002) that can support
students’ learning processes (cf. Biggs 2003). The main principle is optimisation of the con-
ditions for students’ personal understanding to match the target understanding of the course
(Entwistle and Smith 2002). In such an educational setting, students engage in scaffolded
learning activities that develop their existing knowledge, abilities and understanding in a
desirable direction, matching the specified learning objectives of a particular course.
However, to achieve such a match has proved to be quite difficult. In practice, and as illus-
trated below, students’ ways of studying are not easy to steer simply by organising teaching
in different ways.
Previous research into students’ approaches to learning serves to illustrate the complex
relationships between the organisation of an educational setting and students’ preferred
ways of studying. The original research on approaches to learning developed from students’
own stories of how they approached different learning tasks (Marton and Säljö 1976a, 1976b).
Two dimensions, surface and deep levels of processing, were introduced and later concep-
tualised as surface and deep approaches to learning. Students reporting high levels of surface
approach express that studying mainly includes routinely memorising separate facts, or
unrelated bits of knowledge, trying to cope with basic course requirements, without reflect-
ing on applicability or context of learning in a broader sense. In contrast, a deep approach
is coupled with a completely different understanding of what is involved in studying, such
as constantly relating new ideas and previous knowledge, focusing on logical and critical
thinking. It is driven by a genuine interest in the subject, and an explicit intention to under-
stand for oneself (Entwistle 2009).
Since the learning outcomes of a deep approach, as compared to that of a surface
approach, seem more aligned with the general learning objectives of higher education,
much effort has been put into trying to understand how students can be encouraged to
adopt a deep approach (see, e.g. the summary by Baeten et al. 2010). However, the results
are ambiguous. Many different contextual factors, such as teaching methods and types of
assessment, can influence students’ approaches. Moreover, students’ previous learning expe-
riences and personalities seem to add to the complexity of individual students’ studying
preferences. These relationships become even more complicated given students’ subjective
perceptions of the learning environment that mediate the relationship between what can
be seen as objective contextual factors and student factors on the one hand, and the learning
approaches students tend to engage in on the other (Baeten, Struyven, and Dochy 2013;
 EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH   3

Lowyck, Elen, and Clarebout 2004). The common pattern of interaction shows that students
tend to move towards a surface approach due to perceptions of: heavy workload, low teach-
ing quality, teacher-centred learning, unclear goals and standards, uselessness of course
books, irrelevance of learning in professional practice and perceptions of the assessment as
demanding mainly the retrieval of facts. Conversely, students tend to gravitate towards a
deep approach when they perceive adequate workload, good teaching, clear goals and
standards, usefulness of course books, relevant connections between academic learning
and professional practice and perceptions of the assessment as demanding higher levels of
cognitive processing. Another complication is that the relationships between personal fac-
tors, contextual factors, perceived contextual factors and approaches to learning seem to
be bidirectional (Richardson 2006), which means that approaches to learning are not only
influenced by a combination of personal, contextual and perceived contextual factors; they
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 08:19 29 November 2017

also exert influence on these factors.

The challenge of moving from theoretical research findings to educational practice is
illustrated by the large number of studies reporting unsuccessful attempts to induce a deep
approach in different course settings (e.g. Baeten, Struyven, and Dochy 2013; Balasooriya,
Tetik, and Harris 2011; Gijbels, Segers, and Struyf 2008; Gijbels et al. 2005; Gulikers et al. 2006;
Struyven et al. 2006). Explanations often stress the importance of distinguishing between
objective learning contexts per se, and subjective learning contexts as perceived by students.
Although the aim of educational interventions is to enhance the deep approach, and ade-
quate evidence-based changes are implemented in the learning environments, the arrange-
ments can be perceived and interpreted differently by students. Studies also indicate that
surface and deep approaches appear to be differently resistant to change. While it is easy
to get students to adopt a surface approach, it is much more difficult to design learning
environments that promote a deep approach, at least in the short term (Gijbels et al. 2009;
Nijhuis, Segers, and Gijselaers 2005; Segers, Nijhuis, and Gijselaers 2006).
Previous research indicates that students are differently inclined to change their
approaches (McCune 2000). Within the approaches to a learning framework, this phenom-
enon relates to what Entwistle and Ramsden (1983) describe in terms of a strategic approach
to studying representing students’ capacity and willingness to organise their studying activ-
ities based on a determination to perform well in their studies. The strategic approach can
be seen as a measure of students’ tendency to change levels of surface and deep approaches
in order to adapt to assessment demands. Today, the strategic approach is seldom described
as a separate learning approach. Rather, it is seen as an indication of goal achievement and
the self-experienced capacity to adapt one’s studying activities to reach these goals (Entwistle
and McCune 2004). The notion of a strategic approach thus relates to well-known theories
focusing on the implications of summative assessment on student learning, such as research
on the ‘hidden curriculum’ (Snyder 1971), ‘the examination game’ (Miller and Parlett 1974),
‘expertise students’ (Janssen 1996) and ‘backwash effects’ (Biggs 1998). But the strategic
approach also relates to students’ metacognitive ability to reflect on their learning processes
and the development of self-regulating skills that allow students to monitor and take control
of their own learning processes (Boekaerts and Cascallar 2006; Boekaerts and Corno 2005).
Several studies into approaches to learning have touched upon these issues (Case and
Gunstone 2010; Heikkilä and Lonka 2006; Heikkilä et al. 2011; Spada and Moneta 2012).
There is a general tendency to link students’ metacognitive skills and achievement goals – in
terms of the set of beliefs that reflect why and how they engage with particular academic
 4   M. ÖHRSTEDT AND M. SCHEJA

tasks – to the concepts of deep and surface approaches, rather than to keep them separate.
There are also interesting linkages between approaches to learning and coping strategies
(Moneta and Spada 2009; Moneta, Spada, and Rost 2007). The strategic approach is particu-
larly helpful to understand students’ ways of managing their studies in relation to the specific
requirements of a particular course.
Looking across previous research on approaches to learning makes it clear that the varying
ways in which students go about studying are influenced by complex processes, where both
individual and contextual factors matter and interact in shaping the approaches that stu-
dents adopt. Strategic aspects, such as achievement goals and metacognitive skills, seem
to have an important impact on students’ ways of studying. General patterns have been
quite well documented but we know less about local variation and the practical application
of research findings. However, students’ subjective perceptions of a particular course context
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 08:19 29 November 2017

seem to be crucial to understand why they go about studying the way they do.

Aim
The aim of this study is to elaborate further the process of students’ selection of studying
activities from a student perspective, by searching for similarities and common patterns
among students representing quite different approaches to learning within a specific course
context.

Method
Participants
The present study formed part of a larger research project (Öhrstedt 2017) investigating
students’ studying and learning in psychology. Students were recruited from two successive
introductory courses in psychology at a large Swedish university. All first-semester students
attending a compulsory seminar at the end of the teaching section of the first five-week
course were invited to participate in the study which involved responding to an inventory.
This inventory included a Swedish version of the 52-item ASSIST questionnaire (Tait, Entwistle,
and McCune 1998) that measures levels of surface, deep and strategic approaches to learn-
ing. Students were also asked to provide self-ratings of their expected examination grades.
Actual grades were later retrieved for students who had approved the linking of these.1
In total, 261 students completed the ASSIST inventory. A sample of 5 students was ran-
domly selected from the 95 students who volunteered for follow-up interviews in the first
course, and 6 students out of 85 volunteers were selected from the second course as a
purposeful sample. These 6 students were chosen from the 17 students who had rated
themselves as at least one standard deviation above or below the mean in at least two of
the approach dimensions (surface, deep or strategic approach) measured by ASSIST, to rep-
resent the widest possible spread according to different approaches to learning. All students
invited to the interview study volunteered and seven students also took part in a second
follow-up interview six months later. Students who chose to participate in the study received
partial academic credits for being involved in research. The interview sample included 11
students – 7 women and 4 men – with ages ranging from 19 to 27. Eight of the students had
had previous experiences of studying at university and three of these eight students had
pursued academic studies for more than five semesters. Even so, students varied a great
 EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH   5

deal both in relation to their approaches to learning as measured by the ASSIST, but also in
relation to grades they expected they would get sitting their first psychology course exam-
ination (in Social psychology). Students generally had difficulties estimating correctly what
grade they would get, assuming, with a few exceptions, they would get a lower grade than
they actually got.

Ethical considerations
In all activities that involved collecting the data, the ethical rules and guidelines set out by
the Swedish Research Council and The Ethical Review Act (2003, 460) were strictly observed.
Students who volunteered to participate in the study were informed that their participation
was optional and that they could terminate their involvement at any time during the data
collection. They were also informed that if they decided to participate, any information
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 08:19 29 November 2017

(interview statements, written comments, etc.) that they passed on to the interviewer would
be dealt with in a way that would inform and enrich the research process, without compro-
mising the personal integrity and identities of those involved. All the information collected
in the course of the study was dealt with under the aegis of the Public Access to Information
and Secrecy Act (SFS 2009, 400).

Procedure
In the first interview, students were asked to think about the psychology course they had
recently finished, to describe how they set about studying in relation to this specific course,
to provide examples of how they tackled specific learning tasks and to detail how they
perceived their learning environment. Students described activities and intentions for stud-
ying in relation to lectures, seminars and the examination; students also described in detail
how they set about different learning tasks and interacted with peers. The interviews were
conversational in style, so students were allowed to speak freely about different aspects of
their studies, while the interviewer mainly encouraged the students to elaborate on their
examples in order to clarify what was being brought up in the interview.
The second interview was designed as a close follow-up. Students were initially asked to
describe what had happened since the last interview in terms of everyday occupation. All
students explained that they completed the previous semester, although some of them had
not passed all examinations. They were then encouraged to describe, freely, their studying
activities during their first semester of psychology studies. As in the first interview, the inter-
viewer allowed the students to choose the issues to discuss, and interfered only to ask for
concrete examples of the phenomenon described, or to clarify similarities and differences
in the student descriptions compared to what they stated in the first interview. The students
were then prompted to reflect on these comparisons. The interviews were conducted in
Swedish and lasted between 31 and 65 minutes and with the students’ informed consent,
were audio-recorded and later transcribed in full.

Data analysis
Conceptually, the analysis of the interview data drew on the Students’ Approaches to
Learning framework (Entwistle 2009), focusing on aspects of the students’ stories that
revealed ways of perceiving and dealing with learning activities in the particular courses
 6   M. ÖHRSTEDT AND M. SCHEJA

concerned. The analysis was inspired by previous phenomenographic research (Marton and
Booth 1997) but particularly drew on qualitative research into students’ studying and learning
processes in higher education (see Scheja 2006; see also Entwistle, McCune, and Scheja
2006), focusing on similarities, rather than differences, between individual students’ varying
ways of tackling their studies, and the intentions that students expressed in their narratives.
Questions that guided the analysis of the interviews involved: how did students go about
their studies? What stood out as important for them in relation to lectures, seminars and
course work and in everyday discussions with teachers and peers? What seemed to influence
the ways in which students set about studying?
The analysis involved the two authors separately reading and re-reading the transcripts
several times, grouping similar instances of the students’ narratives that gave indications of
students’ approaches to learning in relation to the course context in which they had pursued
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 08:19 29 November 2017

their studies (cf. Entwistle, McCune, and Scheja 2006). The guiding questions mentioned
above were used as a heuristic framework to inductively produce a thematic description of
aspects that, from the students’ perspective, had influenced the ways in which they set about
studying and learning psychology. The two authors carried out the analysis separately, and
then met to compare groupings of transcripts and summaries of the main themes coming
out of the interviews. Putting the two individually produced analyses alongside one another
allowed the authors to identify commonalities in the interview data and discuss interpreta-
tions of students’ utterances to clarify the meaning of what was being said. The identified
commonalities were subsequently summarised in terms of five ‘reference points’ to which
all students explicitly referred in the interviews – reference points that, from the students’
perspective, seemed to have had a profound impact on their ways of studying.

The course context

All students were enrolled in Psychology I, the first semester of undergraduate psychology
studies. The semester was divided into five-week course modules, introducing four subfields
of psychology: social psychology, biological psychology, cognitive psychology and devel-
opmental psychology. All course modules were similarly designed. Lecturers organised their
teaching around different themes covered in the assigned course literature in large lecture
halls (up to 80 students). Apart from lecture-based teaching, students were also offered a
couple of seminars (involving about 30 students), and were given one applied task per course
module to perform in smaller groups (of 3–5 students). Typically, the students were offered
eight lectures, two seminars and two group-work gatherings at the start and at the end of
the group work. All teaching sessions were optional, except seminars and group work gath-
erings. In respect of examinations, a summative assessment format was used in which stu-
dents sat a four-hour written examination towards the end of each module, challenging
them to answer mainly open-ended essay questions.

Results
Even though this study set out to investigate the process of selecting study strategies by
revealing similarities in students’ descriptions, it is initially important to clarify that the stud-
ying activities described differed a great deal between students. Obviously, the students
approached their studies in very different ways, despite being presented with the same
 EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH   7

educational tasks within the same educational setting. These differences presumably mirror
the sample variance regarding self-reported approaches to learning.

Five ‘reference points’

The analysis of students’ descriptions of how they had set about studying revealed that,
despite the marked variation in studying activities and approaches to learning, all students
referred to a common set of reference points perceived as guiding their ways of studying. In
particular, the students used these reference points as a framework to relate to when decid-
ing how to tackle particular learning tasks and how to organise their studying. These refer-
ence points were also described as providing guidance in how to adjust the approaches to
learning over time. The reference points underscored by the students included their per-
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 08:19 29 November 2017

ceptions of:

• Previous studying experiences

• Course recommendations
• Learning outcomes
• Assessment demands
• Time and effort spent on studying.

In describing their ways of studying, students repeatedly referred to one or several of the
five reference points. Each student described a cognitive process where they adapted their
study strategies after reflecting upon one or more of the reference points. Sometimes the
reference points were interpreted and described as unanimous, guiding the student towards
a certain set of studying activities. In other cases, there were descriptions of two or several
reference points interpreted as encouraging very different studying activities. Where this
was the case, the students presented their choice of studying activity as a result of a nego-
tiation between preferences. As will be presented below, the five reference points were not
equally important to all students, and individual preferences sometimes changed over time.
Students also said that their perception of studying activities promoted by a certain reference
point could vary over time.
The results section focuses on describing the process of negotiation between reference
points. Excerpts from the interviews are used to illustrate the reappearing patterns of stu-
dents referring to reference points in describing their ways of studying. The balancing act,
involving comparing reference points to one another, will also be described, as well as the
successive homogenisation of studying strategies developed over time. The interview
excerpts have been translated into English for the purposes of presentation in this paper.
Quotations are anonymised and all findings are presented in a way that upholds the ethical
protocols of the study.

Motivating the selection of studying activities

The first indications of students’ tendency to use reference points motivating their ways of
studying were often found early in the interviews. Several of the students actually started
their descriptions by comparing applied and recommended studying strategies. All students
expressed a clear awareness of which activities were expected from them, and took an active
position in relation to these course recommendations. In particular, students referred to a
 8   M. ÖHRSTEDT AND M. SCHEJA

recommendation to read selected chapters in the course-literature, keeping pace with what
was brought up in the lectures. Students’ descriptions revealed variation in terms of the
extent to which this recommendation was followed. This variation was substantial both
between different students and, as will become clear below, for the same student within
the course taken. The following quotation, taken from one of the students with a clear ambi-
tion to follow course recommendations, describes in detail the way students perceived that
the recommendations guided their studying activities, and which supplementary strategies
could be applied. In addition, the quotation below exemplifies that students also let expected
learning outcomes and assessment demands guide their selection of studying activities:
Before the course I started reading the course literature, and then I read it actively, not just
browsing through it or reading and underlining, but [what I do is] I read, underline and write
down what I think is most important, and you know I write quite a lot, so I write about the text or
the book I am reading in my notepad and then I go to the lecture, write down what the lecturer
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 08:19 29 November 2017

says, what’s in their [the lecturers’] PowerPoint presentations, because for some reason I think
that helps, motor learning, you know muscle memory, that you really write it down, because I will
have to take that with me to the examination, that you’re supposed to be able to write it down,
and then I have like heard it, I’ve read it and I’ve written it down, and then I think it will help me
anyway, and then I write down my notes and then I do that in preparing for [lectures]…I check
which chapters you’re supposed to read, I read those chapters, write down, underline and then
I go to the lectures, so I keep doing that all the time.
This quotation reveals a student performing deliberate studying activities, expressing the
perception of a good match between indications of appropriate studying activities derived
from course recommendations, personal learning outcomes and assessment demands.
Similar to other students expressing an explicit intention to follow course recommendations
in this particular sample, the student quoted above testified to a personal interest in psy-
chology as a subject area and an ambition to learn as much as possible. In this case, it would
seem that course recommendations and this specific aim regarding expected learning out-
comes were seen as aligned with each other.
In contrast, students who declared they did not particularly follow the recommended
course guidelines were explicitly more selective and specific in their descriptions of what
they wanted to achieve in their own learning, even though the same reference points were
used to motivate their decisions. These students were well aware of course recommenda-
tions, but neglected these, referring to more modest expectancies of learning outcomes,
mainly corresponding to meeting assessment demands. Their perceptions of adequate
studying activities also involved factoring in estimations of perceived time and effort required
to fulfil these activities. These students concluded that the study strategies spelled out in
the course recommendations lacked efficiency and would not result in the sort of learning
required by the examination. In addition, they claimed that following recommendations
would require more time and effort than was necessary to pass the examination, or even to
receive a good grade. Students described their capacity to balance such indications, to judge
and make selections with regard to different reference point indications, as something they
had picked up in their previous schooling.
If I hadn’t studied [at university] before I think I would have bought the books and read more
to pass the examination, but now I know you can pass the examination [anyway], and in the
lectures they go through the most important things, and as I said you learn how to study when
you’ve done it for a while
 EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH   9

In this specific context, students who initially presented themselves as ignoring course rec-
ommendations because they felt they had the capacity to select important information
relevant to examination demands, desired learning outcomes, and in parallel economising
the effort put into studying, reported consistency and continued to carry out their planned
studying strategies throughout the whole semester. However, students who described them-
selves as wanting to follow course recommendations, learning as much as possible, expressed
a growing frustration regarding perceived learning outcome:
It took me two weeks to realise that it was, like, hopeless to keep on studying that way. I mean
it’s so inefficient I lagged behind, I didn’t even have time to look at all the chapters, because I
sort of sat up late at night and then I realised in class that compared to how much I had read
and how much I understood, if my way of studying was effective I should have been able to
follow [what was being said], and so after two weeks, with two weeks left to the examination,
it didn’t feel good at all and I didn’t feel prepared to sit the examination, and didn’t feel I was in
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 08:19 29 November 2017

phase with lectures and stuff

Indeed, these students experienced strong dissatisfaction, both in terms of lack of expected
learning outcome in relation to the time and effort spent on studying and a growing aware-
ness of the importance of a more specific and efficient learning process, adapting their ways
of studying to meet assessment demands within the time-frame available. This notion is
illustrated by the interview except below:
Interviewee: I read the first chapters really carefully and then I started browsing more because
I realised that all of the info wasn’t, like, necessary

Interviewer:  And what does necessary mean to you?

Interviewee: Exam wise, like I knew it wouldn’t be on the examination, it may be interesting

and all but it is important to pass the examination
In parallel with the growing feeling of dissatisfaction among students who had chosen to
follow the course recommendations, students talked about course recommendations being
partly modified by the teachers in relation to the different teaching sessions. The comple-
mentary recommendations that teachers gave in class – to first and foremost pay attention
to lectures, and to take careful notes, and then consult the textbooks – were seen as con-
firming the efficiency of the strategies adopted by the students who explicitly declared they
did not follow the initial course recommendations, instead focusing their work on selective
parts with the aim of meeting the requirements of the upcoming examination.
Students reported that, as they neared the examination, they tended to regard the infor-
mation presented in the lectures, summarised in the teachers’ PowerPoint presentations, as
the key content pinpointing the essence of what was to be learnt and assessed within the
course, in line with the modified course recommendations. The fact that teachers, as experts
in the field, emphasised certain information in lectures and offered cues in relation to the
upcoming examination, was seen as confirming students’ interpretations of what was most
important and relevant to focus on in their studies; as one interviewee commented: ‘I assume
when the teachers did the pdfs, they wrote down what’s central and important for us to
know’.
The importance of directing the academic work towards assessment demands was also
evident in some students’ ability to pick up even more fine-grained cues targeting the core
content more exactly, guiding them towards a specific insight into the sorts of understand-
ings that would be required in the examination. In particular, students would emphasise the
 10   M. ÖHRSTEDT AND M. SCHEJA

importance of being sensitive to the frequency and intensity by which concepts were intro-
duced in lectures. This is evident in the interview excerpt below:
Interviewee: From the lectures I could tell what the most important aspects are of that par-
ticular topic, because you notice how much time the lecturer spends on different
parts

Interviewer:  Can you give me an example?

Interviewee: There’s this [content] and that was addressed in the lecture and you clearly saw
that he, I think it was a he, really took his time to explain it so you would under-
stand, using examples and stuff, even in seminars and then in turned out that
this was also to be included in the examination; you had counted on that and
so you felt pretty prepared
Although the students were never asked to elaborate on reasons for organising their course-
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 08:19 29 November 2017

work the way they did, some students did reflect on the learning environment and how it
influenced their work. In doing so, they testified to feeling rather anonymous in relation to
peers and teachers; they described the teacher–student interaction as one-directional, and
the examination structure was described in terms of offering one single crucial occasion of
summative feedback in each course. Students would explicitly draw on previous learning
experiences in describing these matters. As one observed,
In upper secondary school, or in high school it felt important to be in class, raise your hand, ask
stuff, show yourself; here it’s like it doesn’t matter, nobody knows who I am; if I say something
clever at a lecture or ask a good question, when I sit the examination the person who marks
the examination doesn’t know who I am, and so that feels more important, the knowledge you
actually demonstrate in that test is what counts

Homogenisation of studying activities

As previously stated and described above, five reference points emerged in students’ descrip-
tions of how they set about studying psychology. During the course, students’ ability to
select study strategies relevant to the course context seemed to develop, resulting in a
gradual homogenisation of studying activities. Conclusions based on balancing judgements
of information from separate reference points converged and a common method emerged
of selecting what and how to learn, including how to tackle course literature and alternative
sources of information. Specific trends described by students were:

(1) Instead of reading through selected chapters in the course literature, the books
were used as a complement to the lecturers’ PowerPoint materials. If students found
concepts introduced in lectures unclear, they sought clarification by consulting the
books. Several of the students compared this target-oriented process to looking
up information in a handbook or an encyclopaedia: ‘over time the books became
more like an encyclopaedia than books you were supposed to read from the first
to the last page’.
(2) The Internet was seen as a valuable source of information, and a viable alternative
to search for information complementary to the course literature. Students gen-
erally found ‘googling’ particular concepts a relevant and time-efficient strategy,
and googling also often brought with it the additional benefit of providing stu-
dents with several different definitions and explanations of topics which was seen
 EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH   11

as facilitating understanding: ‘instead of reading like 15 pages I googled that part

and got a summary’.
(3) In addition to PowerPoint presentations, past examinations were frequently used
as indicators of key content of the course module and important suppliers of infor-
mation on what was required in the upcoming examination. In particular, reviewing
past examinations was perceived as potentially helpful in validating the relevance
of the lecturers’ PowerPoint presentations in that the past examinations summa-
rised the most important content to be learnt within the specified course context:
‘by [answering old examination questions] I think you [get to] know what’s most
important, it’s such a big course and then you manage to delimit it, sort of, make it
more manageable’.
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 08:19 29 November 2017

Studying efficiently
To summarise, students developed a conception of the core content of courses in psychology
as including information presented in lectures and summarised in PowerPoint presentations,
and they also came to view revisiting past examination questions as a highly relevant and
rewarding technique, providing a sense of studying efficiently. This sense of efficiency was
equivocal, in the sense that it involved both experiences of improved personal understanding
of psychology, and boosted academic achievement.
It simply took too long to read the book and anyway it was summarised in the lectures and so
it didn’t feel necessary to read the whole book, and you don’t have time to read the entire book
anyway, and you don’t have time to cram it if you’re to read the book once, so it feels better to
read the lecture notes instead and reread them, you don’t have to write that much about it in
the examination so it isn’t that important to read the whole book, and I got a better grade too
so it wasn’t just my imagination, I didn’t study much more I just switched strategies

Discussion
Despite great variations in approaches to learning, expected grades, and actual academic
achievement, as reported in the questionnaire, and marked differences in students’ ways of
studying, as expressed in the interviews, all students repeatedly referred to a set of common
reference points in describing their studying activities. Individual study strategies seem to
be guided by, more or less, deliberate considerations based on analysing input provided by
these reference points. The reference points included students’ perceptions of: previous
experiences of studying, course recommendations, expected learning outcomes, assessment
demands and the time and effort spent on studying.

Previous experiences of studying

Students compared and contrasted previous experiences of studying with the specific course
context in which they pursued their psychology studies. They preferred to use strategies
that had proved successful in previous course settings, but also revealed sensitivity to envi-
ronmental differences requiring adaption of study strategies. Examples of discrepancies
mentioned by the students were: perceived workload, assessment demands and stu-
dent–teacher relations. Their development as a student of psychology as a specific discipline
 12   M. ÖHRSTEDT AND M. SCHEJA

was highly valued as a unique source of information. Already within a couple of weeks,
students expressed a readiness to adapt their ways of studying to the specific demands they
believed were put on them in this new learning environment.

Course recommendations
The students expressed clear and identical ideas of which studying activities they should
engage in, i.e. strategies recommended by teachers. All students repeatedly compared and
contrasted recommendations with the strategies actually applied. However, course recom-
mendations were only followed when they were not in conflict with conclusions derived
from other reference points, like previous educational experiences, perceptions of learning
outcomes or assessment demands. So, in terms of their guiding status, recommendations
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 08:19 29 November 2017

actually seemed to be secondary, confirming rather than initiating students’ personal study
strategies. An example of this is the students’ conclusions regarding the perception of change
in course recommendations. The initial recommendation was rejected by students drawing
on previous educational experiences, and perceived assessment demands, while it was
accepted by students referring to its consistency in relation to learning outcomes. The mod-
ified recommendation, communicated by the teachers in relation to the different teaching
sessions, was better aligned with the perceptions expressed by students who had disre-
garded the initial recommendation, resulting in them accepting their guiding value. The
students that had embraced the initial course recommendation instead referred to the sud-
den realisation of reference point consensus as an argument to abandon their first strategy.
They perceived that the teachers’ modified recommendation confirmed their experiences
of dissatisfying learning outcomes, and provided them with an impetus to orient themselves
towards assessment demands, as a result of lack of time and resources. Furthermore, this
insight provided a genuine experience of what studying psychology meant, guiding the
prospective selection of studying activities.

Learning outcomes
Students’ reflections on learning outcomes were both prospective and retrospective. In the
process of developing their study strategies, students considered which knowledge and
abilities they thought they had to master later, and reflected on the optimal way to achieve
these. In describing how they set about studying within the course, the students seemed
to evaluate and compare the understanding they achieved through coursework, with pro-
spective desires. Moreover, any guidance provided by other reference points, such as pre-
vious studying experiences, course recommendations and perceived assessment demands,
were factored in. As students neared the examination, there was a clear tendency to equalise
desired learning outcomes and perceived assessment demands.

Assessment demands
All students referred to consideration of assessment demands in their selection of studying
activities. While some students constantly equalised expected and desired learning out-
comes with an approved examination, others also expressed higher order learning goals.
As the examination approached, the impact of assessment demands as a reference point
 EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH   13

increased considerably among all students. The perception of successively declining

resources (time and effort) to learn and perform well, a performance which would be eval-
uated in a specific way at a specified occasion (examination), pushed the students towards
adopting study strategies that would be successful in relation to previous educational expe-
riences, not least discipline-specific. In the present study, all students presented a common
perception of which abilities would be rewarded in both the first and all following exami-
nations. This conclusion resulted in successively homogenised selections of studying activ-
ities, visible already within a couple of weeks, according to the students’ descriptions.

Time and effort spent on studying

Students regularly reflected on the time- and effort-consuming aspects of various studying
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 08:19 29 November 2017

activities. Activities requiring many working hours could be selected if consideration of other
reference points did not advise otherwise. Generally, higher order learning outcome goals
seemed to endorse time-consuming studying activities. As the importance of the assessment
demands became more apparent in the end of a course module, and passing the examination
became the primary learning outcome, the need for a more efficient way of distributing
time and effort became evident for all students. In parallel, the experiences of studying the
specific discipline of psychology increased and enabled them to make what was perceived
as adequate decisions about which studying activities to select.

Targeting efficient studying activities

The process that students were engaged in, taking a set of reference points into consideration
when selecting studying activities, can be seen as a way of adjusting their sight or taking
aim. This targeting process includes students’ striving for personal understanding to approach
their perception of target understanding, to make use of the concepts presented by Entwistle
and Smith (2002). Using the reference points as targeting tools, students felt that they could
control their studying and learning in what was perceived as an efficient way.
The targeting process, as described by the students in the specific learning environment
under study, confirms the findings of bidirectional relations between personal factors, con-
textual factors, students’ perceptions of contextual factors and approaches to learning
(Richardson 2006). It also mirrors several important linkages revealed in previous research
(Baeten et al. 2010). In terms of personal factors with impact on students’ approaches to
learning, the significance of previous educational experiences is obvious. In addition, the
analysis suggests that students’ own reflections both regarding prospective and retrospective
learning outcomes, should not be underestimated. Since objective contextual factors were
not in focus in this study, the implications of them cannot be taken into deep consideration.
However, students’ subjective perceptions of the course context were well articulated in the
interviews. The students collectively described the learning environment as teacher-centred,
with teachers mainly focusing on summarising and transmitting the core-content of the
courses, i.e. what the students perceived as constituting the target understanding. Students
also described a learning environment with limited abilities for teacher–student interaction,
and lack of formative assessment of adequate skills. Examinations were perceived as mainly
demanding retrieval of facts, best met by memorising adequate knowledge by rote.
 14   M. ÖHRSTEDT AND M. SCHEJA

The targeting process could be interpreted as pushing the students towards a surface
approach to learning. The fast and collective adaption of studying activities in this specific
direction serves as an example illustrating the flexibility in the development of students’
approaches to learning, at least in the direction of surface approach (Gijbels, Segers, and
Struyf 2008; Struyven et al. 2006). It is important to state that even though deep approaches
are often seen as preferable within higher education in general (Vermetten, Vermunt, and
Lodewijks 2002), the design of this study makes it impossible to comment if this is true for
the specific educational setting under study. The students’ adaption of studying activities
towards a surface approach could, in fact, result in their personal understanding approach
towards a perceived target understanding. This was, indeed, what the students themselves
expressed. The homogenisation of studying activities in the direction of the surface approach
was perceived to be desirable and potentially rewarding in terms of academic success.
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 08:19 29 November 2017

It is important to comment on the fact that some students actually perceive that they
learn more by adopting a surface approach. This phenomenon adds to the discussion of the
complexity of the learning environments in which approaches to studying develop, and
points to the importance of including the students’ subjective perspective in any analysis
aiming to describe and understand the targeting process. It would be valuable to include
metacognitive aspects, such as the feeling of knowing, the feeling of being in control and
judgements of learning (Boekaerts and Cascallar 2006; Boekaerts and Corno 2005), in further
researching this topic.

Practical implications
Knowledge and awareness of students’ reasoning when adapting studying activities to spe-
cific course contexts can serve as important keys to understanding how particular educa-
tional settings interplay with student learning. This study implies that some aspects are
particularly important for teachers and educational designers to carefully consider when
developing powerful learning environments, so that the educational setting prompts stu-
dents to adapt desirable student activities, and approach personal understanding to target
understanding. These aspects include making sure that:

(1) Students reflect on how previous studying experiences can both help and hinder
learning.
(2) The set-up of the course is aligned and transparent to the students, so that they
perceive that following studying recommendations is an efficient use of time and
effort, providing them with a feeling of progression in learning and that is also rel-
evant to assessment demands.
(3) Assessment demands meet target understanding, so that students’ process of tar-
geting reduces the gap between personal and target understanding.

Conclusions and limitations

This study suggests that students refer to a common set of reference points guiding their
selection of studying activities, despite considerable differences in their approaches to learn-
ing and expectation and achievement regarding grades. Whether these reference points are
unique to this specific educational setting, or could generalise to other contexts, like more
 EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH   15

advanced courses, other disciplines or students in different cultures, remains to be explored.

The research presented here relates to a particular course context so it is, of course, important
not to assume that the findings are necessarily generalisable. However, previous research
on both intrinsic and extrinsic factors influencing students’ adaption of approaches to learn-
ing (Baeten et al. 2010), sensitivity to assessment demands (Broekkamp and Van Hout-Wolters
2007), and metacognitive and self-regulating activities (Boekaerts and Cascallar 2006;
Boekaerts and Corno 2005), suggest that the pattern observed here could reappear, even
though the combination and number, as well as importance, of different reference points
may vary depending on the context in which students are pursuing their academic
studies.

Note
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 08:19 29 November 2017

Actual study achievement. The study achievement in a written examination constitutes the actual
1. 
grade outcome measure. The student’s achievements were graded from A to F in line with the
ECTS (European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System) grading system. In Sweden, however,
this system involves criterion-referenced grading instead of relative grading.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID
Maria Öhrstedt   http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0773-9687
Max Scheja   http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1537-2697

References
Baeten, M., E. Kyndt, K. Struyven, and F. Dochy. 2010. “Using Student-Centred Learning Environments to
Stimulate Deep Approaches to Learning: Factors Encouraging or Discouraging Their Effectiveness.”
Educational Research Review 53: 243–260. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2010.06.001.
Baeten, M., K. Struyven, and F. Dochy. 2013. “Student-Centred Teaching Methods: Can They Optimise
Students’ Approaches to Learning in Professional Higher Education?” Studies in Educational Evaluation
39 (1): 14–22. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2012.11.001.
Balasooriya, C. D., C. Tetik, and P. Harris. 2011. “Why is My Design Not Working? The Role of Student
Factors.” Research Papers in Education 262: 191–206. doi:10.1080/02671522.2011.561978.
Biggs, J. B. 1998. “Assessment and Classroom Learning: A Role for Summative Assessment?” Assessment
in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice 51: 103–110. doi:10.1080/0969595980050106.
Biggs, J. 2003. Teaching for Quality Learning at University. 2nd ed. Buckingham: Society for Research
into Higher Education.
Boekaerts, M., and E. Cascallar. 2006. “How Far Have We Moved toward the Integration of Theory and
Practice in Self-Regulation?” Educational Psychology Review 18 (3): 199–210. doi:10.1007/s10648-
006-9013-4.
Boekaerts, M., and L. Corno. 2005. “Self -Regulation in the Classroom: A Perspective on Assessment and
Intervention.” Applied Psychology 54 (2): 199–231. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2005.00205.x.
Broekkamp, H., and B. H. A. M. Van Hout-Wolters. 2007. “Students’ Adaptation of Study Strategies When
Preparing for Classroom Tests.” Educational Psychology Review 194: 401–428. doi:10.1007/s10648-
006-9025-0.
 16   M. ÖHRSTEDT AND M. SCHEJA

Case, J., and R. Gunstone. 2010. “Metacognitive Development as a Shift in Approach to Learning: An
in-Depth Study.” Studies in Higher Education 274: 459–470. doi:10.1080/0307507022000.
Entwistle, N. 2009. Teaching for Understanding at University. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Entwistle, N., and V. McCune. 2004. “The Conceptual Bases of Study Strategy Inventories.” Educational
Psychology Review 16 (4): 325–345. doi:10.1007/s10648-004-0003-0.
Entwistle, N., and P. Ramsden. 1983. Understanding Student Learning. London: Croom Helm.
Entwistle, N., and C. Smith. 2002. “Personal Understanding and Target Understanding: Mapping
Influences on the Outcomes of Learning.” The British Journal of Educational Psychology 72: 321–342.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12396309.
Entwistle, N., V. McCune, and M. Scheja. 2006. Student Learning in Context: Understanding the
Phenomenon and the Person. In Instructional Psychology: Past, Present, and Future Trends, edited by
L. Verschaffel, F. Dochy, M. Boekaerts, & S. Vosniadou, 131–148. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Gijbels, D., G. Van de Watering, F. Dochy, and P. Van den Bossche. 2005. “The Relationship between
Students’ Approaches to Learning and the Assessment of Learning Outcomes.” European Journal of
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 08:19 29 November 2017

Psychology of Education 20 (4): 327–341.

Gijbels, D., M. Segers, and E. Struyf. 2008. “Constructivist Learning Environments and the Impossibility
to Change Students’ Perceptions of Assessment Demands and Approaches to Learning.” Instructional
Science 36: 431–443. doi:10.1007/s11251-008-9064-7.
Gijbels, D., L. Coertjens, G. Vanthournout, E. Struyf, and P. Van Petegem. 2009. “Changing Students'
Approaches to Learning: A Two-Year Study within a University Teacher Training Course.” Educational
Studies 355: 503–513. doi:10.1080/03055690902879184.
Gulikers, J. T. M., T. J. Bastiaens, P. A. Kirschner, and L. Kester. 2006. “Relations Between Student
Perceptions of Assessment Authenticity, Study Approaches and Learning Outcome.” Studies in
Educational Evaluation 324: 381–400. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2006.10.003.
Heikkilä, A., and K. Lonka. 2006. “Studying in Higher Education: Students’ Approaches to
Learning, Self-Regulation, and Cognitive Strategies.” Studies in Higher Education 31 (1): 99–117.
doi:10.1080/03075070500392433.
Heikkilä, A., M. Niemivirta, J. Nieminen, and K. Lonka. 2011. “Interrelations among University Students’
Approaches to Learning, Regulation of Learning, and Cognitive and Attributional Strategies: A Person
Oriented Approach.” Higher Education 615: 513–529. doi:10.1007/s10734-010-9346-2.
Janssen, P. J. 1996. “Studaxology: The Expertise Students Need to Be Effective in Higher Education.”
Higher Education 31: 117–141.
Lowyck, J., J. Elen, and G. Clarebout. 2004. “Instructional Conceptions: Analysis from an Instructional
Design Perspective.” International Journal of Educational Research 416: 429–444. doi:10.1016/
j.ijer.2005.08.010.
Marton, F., and S. Booth. 1997. Learning and Awareness. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Ass.
Marton, F., and R. Säljö. 1976b. “On Qualitative Differences in Learning-II Outcome as a Function of the
Learner’s Conception of the Task.” British Journal of Educational Psychology 46: 115–127.
Marton, F., and R. Säljö. 1976a. “On Qualitative Differences in Learning, I. Outcome and Process.” British
Journal of Educational Psychology 46: 4–11.
McCune, V. 2000. “The Development of First-Year University Students’ Approaches to Studying.”
Unpublished PhD thesis., University of Edinburgh, Faculty of Education.
Miller, C. M., and M. R. Parlett. 1974. Up to the Mark: A Study of the Examination Game. London: Society
for Research into Higher Education.
Moneta, G. B., and M. M. Spada. 2009. “Coping as a Mediator of the Relationships between Trait
Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation and Approaches to Studying during Academic Exam Preparation.”
Personality and Individual Differences 46: 664–669. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.01.012.
Moneta, G. B., M. M. Spada, and F. M. Rost. 2007. “Approaches to Studying When Preparing for Final
Exams as a Function of Coping Strategies.” Personality and Individual Differences 431: 191–202.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.12.002.
Nijhuis, J. F. H., M. S. R. Segers, and W. H. Gijselaers. 2005. “Influence of Redesigning a Learning
Environment on Student Perceptions and Learning Strategies.” Learning Environments Research 81:
67–93. doi:10.1007/s10984-005-7950-3.
 EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH   17

Öhrstedt, M. 2017. Högskolestudenters lärande. ett lärstrategiskt perspektiv på studier i psykologi [Learning
in Higher Education. Approaches to Learning Among Psychology Students]. Doctoral thesis,
Stockholm University, Stockholm. http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A1129788&
dswid=-433.
Richardson, J. T. E. 2006. “Investigating the Relationship between Variations in Students’ Perceptions of
Their Academic Environment and Variations in Study Behaviour in Distance Education.” The British
Journal of Educational Psychology 76: 867–893. doi:10.1348/000709905X69690.
Scheja, M. 2006. “Delayed Understanding and Staying in Phase: Students’ Perceptions of Their Study
Situation.” Higher Education 52: 421–445. doi:10.1007/s10734-004-7765-7.
Segers, M., J. Nijhuis, and W. Gijselaers. 2006. “Redesigning a Learning and Assessment Environment:
The Influence on Students’ Perceptions of Assessment Demands and Their Learning Strategies.”
Studies in Educational Evaluation 32: 223–242.
SFS (Swedish Code of Statutes) 2003. The Ethical Review Act. Stockholm: The Swedish Government:
Ministry of Justice.
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 08:19 29 November 2017

SFS (Swedish Code of Statutes) 2009. Public Access to Information and Secrecy Act. Stockholm: The
Swedish Government: Ministry of Justice.
Snyder, B. R. 1971. The Hidden Curriculum. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Spada, M. M., and G. B. Moneta. 2012. “A Metacognitive-Motivational Model of Surface Approach to
Studying.” Educational Psychology 321: 45–62.
Struyven, K., F. Dochy, S. Janssens, and S. Gielen. 2006. “On the Dynamics of Students’ Approaches to
Learning: The Effects of the Teaching/Learning Environment.” Learning and Instruction 164: 279–294.
doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.07.001.
Tait, H., N. J. Entwistle, and V. McCune. 1998. “ASSIST: A Reconceptualisation of the Approaches to
Studying Inventory.” In Improving Student Learning: Improving Students as Learners, edited by C. Rust,
262–271. Oxford: Oxford Brookers University, The Oxford Centre for Staff end Learning Development.
Vermetten, Y. J., J. D. Vermunt, and H. G. Lodewijks. 2002. “Powerful Learning Environments? How
University Students Differ in Their Response to Instructional Measures.” Learning and Instruction 123:
263–284. doi:10.1016/S0959-47520100013-5.