Influence of students’ prior learning experiences, learning

conceptions and approaches on their learning outcomes

'(

Rotacio S. Gravoso
Hiroshima University, Higashi-Hiroshima Shi, Japan
gravoso@hiroshima-u.ac.jp

Arturo E. Pasa
Leyte State University, Baybay, Philippines
artpasa@philweb.inc

Toshiaki Mori
Hiroshima University, Higashi-Hiroshima Shi, Japan
tosmori@hiroshima-u.ac.jp

Abstract: Previous studies showed that students’ prior learning experiences,

learning conceptions, and learning approaches influence their learning outcomes.
To date, however, little is known about the extent of their relationship. This study
was, therefore, conducted to clarify the relationships of these variables. Data
were gathered from 119 college students. Factor analysis was used to obtain
measures for prior learning experiences, learning conceptions, and learning
approaches. The variable, learning outcomes, was measured through a test on
students’ understanding of environmental problems caused by ecologically
unsound agricultural practices. The recursive path analysis showed four paths to
learning outcomes. One path shows that the experience of learning as
collaboration and knowledge construction leads to a conception of learning as
development of perspectives. This conception positively affects learning outcomes.
Another path combines the effects of the experiences of learning as knowledge
construction, situated in real-life situations, and collaboration, leading students
to consider learning as collaboration. This results in the use of inter-relating
approaches, which in turn, produces positive effects on learning outcomes. The
two other paths originate from experience of learning as absorption of
information, indicating that such an experience either results in a conception of
learning as intake of information or use of surface learning approaches. Both
paths show negative effects on learning outcomes.

Keywords: learning outcomes determinants, understanding, environmental problems

Introduction
The issue on how to improve the quality of students’ learning outcomes continues to be the
focus of research in education and psychology. This interest is driven by research findings
showing a mismatch between school learning and skills required by the workplace (see for
instance, Tynjala, 1999; Burgess, 2000). In the literature, it is generally agreed that students’
prior learning experiences, conceptions of learning, and study approaches underpin the quality
of their learning outcomes. Such pioneering studies, for instance, by the Gothenburg scholars

HERDSA 2002 '( PAGE 282

as the concept of price (Dahlgren & Marton, 1978) showed that students who use deep
approaches had deeper understanding of price. This result was replicated in a recent study on
students’ conceptions of mathematics (Crawford, Gordon, Nichols, & Prosser, 1998). More
specifically, the study showed an association between fragmented conception of mathematics
with surface approaches, while a cohesive conception, with deep approaches.
Research also shows that students’ use of learning approaches is determined by their
conceptions of learning. The study by Purdie, Hattie, and Douglas (1996) of Japanese and
Australian students’ conception of learning and their use of self-regulated learning strategies
could attest to this. Among others, the study found a main effect for the “understanding”
conception of learning but did not show any association between the conception of learning as
memorization and total strategy use. These results were interpreted as suggesting that students
who are more proactive in their learning, that is, who demonstrate greater overall use of
learning strategies, are more likely to think of learning as a complex cognitive process than as
a process of collecting information. The above findings corroborate the results of an earlier
study by Van Rossum and Schenk (1984) showing an association between a constructive
learning conception and the use of deep-level approach and relatively high quality learning
outcomes.
Literature, however, reveals that students’ conceptions of learning are shaped by their prior
learning experiences. This is evident in a study by Eklund-Myrskog (1997) showing that
educational contexts influence students’ ways of experiencing learning and tackling tasks.
This is consistent with the synthesis by Entwistle, McCune, and Walker (2001) indicating that
meanings students attach to the concept of learning are derived from the cumulative effects of
previous educational and other experiences. Watkins (2001) agrees, saying that the ways
students learn are a function of how they perceive their learning task and their environment.
Based on these and other similar studies, many authors have argued that students’ prior
learning experiences, learning conceptions, approaches, and outcomes are related. This
position is explained in Prosser and Trigwell’s (1999) 3P (presage-process-product) model
and Entwistle’s (2000) graphical representation of the influences on students’ approaches to
study and learning. Accordingly, if students think of learning as reproduction of information,
they will use surface learning approaches. As a result, their understanding of the subject
matter is superficial. On the other hand, if they perceive learning as transformation of
knowledge, they will adopt deep learning approaches, thus leading them to a thorough
understanding of the topic. However, although studies conducted provide support to this
position, little is known about the extent of these relationships. This study aimed to fill this
gap in the literature by determining the causal relationships of these factors.
Methods
Participants
Participants in this study were 119 college students (27 male; 91 female) taking a
fundamental course on ecology, a required program of study in the university where this study
was conducted. Their ages ranged from 16-29 (M = 19.31; SD = 1.86). Coming from different
parts of the country, students were pursuing various fields of specialization, including
agriculture, communication, agricultural engineering, biology, animal science, home
economics, forestry, statistics, and chemistry.
Instrument
Data were gathered using a questionnaire that contained a 4-option Likert-type scale on prior
learning experiences, conceptions, and approaches. In the prior learning experiences and
learning conceptions sections, students were asked to indicate their agreement to each

HERDSA 2002 '( PAGE 283

statement. Choices were: 4--strongly agree, 3 -- agree, 2 -- disagree, and 1--strongly disagree.
The items were developed based on earlier interviews. Discussions with education professors
and graduate psychology students revealed that the items were appropriate measures for the
constructs but needed revisions to improve clarity.
For learning approaches, students were asked to indicate the extent to which they apply the
specific strategy: 4--all the time or nearly all the time, 3 --usually, though not always, 2 --
sometimes, but mostly not, and 1 -- almost never or not at all. Items were adapted from the
scale by Waugh (1999). The inventory covered five study approaches: deep approaches,
strategic approaches, surface approaches, clarity of study direction, and academic self-
confidence.
The questionnaire included a test on students’ understanding on how such ecologically
unsound agricultural practices as cultivation of hilly areas without the use of erosion control
measures, excessive application of inorganic fertilizer, and heavy pesticide spraying cause
sedimentation, eutrophication, and development of pest resistance, respectively. Consistent
with the current thrust of higher education – that is, to equip students with skills in analysis,
decision-making, and communication (Allan, 1995)– the test asked students to reason and
explain. Specifically, the question was: “How could cultivation of hilly areas without the use
of erosion control measures (or excessive application of inorganic fertilizer or heavy
pesticide spraying) cause sedimentation (or eutrophication or development of pest resistance)?
What techniques should farmers use to help minimize these problems?” Prior to data
gathering, a series of pretests was conducted to improve the comprehensibility of the items
and the test.
Procedures
The questionnaire was administered during regular classes. Prior to data gathering,
arrangements were made with the instructors. Data gathering proceeded only after obtaining
the instructors’ consent. Before answering the questionnaire, a short orientation was
conducted to explain the purpose of the study. Students were also assured of the
confidentiality of their identity.
Students were requested to work independently. Thus, talking was discouraged while
answering the questionnaire. When they had questions, they were requested to approach the
researcher (the first author who gathered the data). Average time spent to answer the
questionnaire was 75 minutes.
Scoring and analysis
The variable, learning outcomes, was measured by taking the students’ scores of their
explanation of the environmental problems. The second author, whose background is on
watershed management and forest influences, evaluated the answers blind using the following
criteria: completeness and correctness (for discussion of the problems) and completeness,
correctness, appropriateness, and functionality (for the recommendations). The highest
possible score for each problem was 100%. The mean score from the three problems was
taken as index for learning outcomes. The ANOVA showed that although the students were in
different year levels, their understanding score was not significantly different (F(3,115) = .83,
p>.10).

For prior learning experiences, learning conceptions, and approaches, students’ mean score in
each factor was used as index. As will be explained below, the factors were determined
through a principal components analysis with promax rotation. The path analysis was used to
determine the causal relationships of the variables.

HERDSA 2002 '( PAGE 284

Results and discussion
Prior learning experiences, learning conceptions, and approaches
Factor analysis was conducted to obtain measures for prior learning experiences, learning
conceptions, and learning approaches. The method involved repeated analyses and
inspections. Items that did not show clear loadings in a factor – that is, items that had a
magnitude of less than .40 or had an absolute discrepancy with any other factor of less than
.10 – were deleted. Table 1 presents the scales and typical items of each factor.
The analysis showed four distinct dimensions that represent students’ learning experiences in
their classes. The first factor groups statements referring to experiences in collaborative
learning. Items in this factor are on the advantages of group learning: collaborative learning
provides them the opportunity to share their ideas and opinions and develops their
interpersonal relations skills. In the second factor, items pertaining to learning experiences
characterizing absorption of information showed high loadings. In this factor, students feel
that their examinations are based on facts, they memorize terms and concepts, cram around
examination time, and change in opinions and ideas is less emphasized. Items in the third
factor have something to do with experiences in situated learning. Performance evaluation
focuses on the process and outputs, not on examination scores. Activities emphasize
application of understanding to the students’ day-to-day activities and relating experiences in
class discussions. Factor 4, on the other hand, have items relating to students’ experience of
constructing knowledge. Students choose their own methods of learning and explore their
own meaning.

Results also showed three discernible dimensions representing students’ understanding of the
concept of learning. The first factor can be interpreted as conception of learning as
development of perspective. In this factor, students think of learning as looking for
relationships, development of new perspectives, change of ideas and opinions, making sense
of the world, applying understanding to a new situation, and change of behavior as a result of
understanding. The second factor relates to a view in which a lot of value is attached to
studying in cooperation with fellow students and sharing the tasks of studying with them.
According to this conception, collaborative learning facilitates accomplishment of learning
tasks, enables them to refine their ideas and concepts, widens their perspectives, and develops
teamwork. The third factor refers to a conception that learning is intake of information. More
specifically, the items pertain to the view that learning is memorization and regurgitation of
information during examinations, listening to lectures, and performing skills as described in
manuals. Most importantly, students think that learning is an activity done by a teacher to the
students.
As regards learning approaches, the analysis showed five distinct dimensions. Factor 1, like
that in Waugh’s (1999) scale, showed substantial loadings of items that pertain to students’
feelings of confidence in their studies. These include the feelings that they understand the
subjects they are studying, ease in performing learning tasks, and confidence of their ability to
achieve the standards set for themselves. The second factor duplicates the Strategic
Approaches Subscale in Waugh’s scale. Items are on students’ desire to achieve higher in
their studies, exerting efforts in their studies, systematic organization of their activities, and
proper time management. Factors 3 and 4 are composed of items classified under the deep
approaches subscale in Waugh’s scale. In this study, however, Factor 3 shows substantial
loadings of items about students’ use of evidence to arrive at a conclusion. Factor 4, on the
other hand, are strategies where students relate and connect concepts and ideas to seek for
understanding. These concepts may be in the same or in other fields. Factor 5 shows loadings
of items on surface approaches. These include unclear study direction (taking a course just to

HERDSA 2002 '( PAGE 285

please other people, other people’s influence on the choice of subjects, and unclear reasons
for studying) and surface approaches (coping and reading without understanding).

Table 1. Scales and typical items for prior learning experiences, conceptions of learning, and
learning approaches.

Scales and Subscales Sample Items Percentage Cronbach’s

contribution α
Prior learning
experiences 47.64 .77
Collaborative In our group work, we learn different information
learning and ideas from our classmates. 20.01 .76

Absorption of Our examinations focus more on testing what we

information have memorized rather than what we have 12.32 .75
understood.

Situated learning Things we discuss in our classes are relevant to our 7.89 .65
daily life.

Construction of In our classes, we are able to form new ideas and

knowledge opinions, not just take the teacher’s point of view. 7.42 .61

Conceptions of 44.14 .84

learning
As development of Learning is seeing things and issues from a different 26.05 .83
perspectives point of view.

As collaboration Group work facilitates accomplishment of learning 7.64 .79

tasks – i.e., assignments, projects, and other
requirements.

As intake of Learning is answering such objective type of 7.64 .64

information examinations as enumeration, filling the blanks, or
multiple choice tests.

Learning approaches 50.27 .83

Academic self- I feel I have a good understanding of the subjects I’m
confidence taking. 23.89 .78

Strategic approach I aim to be systematic and organized when I study a 8.05 .77
lesson.

Use of evidence I try to look at the evidence carefully and reach my 7.21 .72
own conclusions.

Inter-relating I relate ideas from other topics and other courses 5.93 .73
whenever possible.

Surface approaches I drift into studying various subjects without 5.69 .65
deciding for myself what I really want to do.
I feel I’m drowning in large amount of materials to
cope with my course.

Grasping the causal relationships

The central focus of this study was to determine the causal relationships of prior learning
experiences, learning conceptions, learning approaches, and learning outcomes. Thus, a
recursive path analysis using multiple regression was done. Recursive path analysis allows the

HERDSA 2002 '( PAGE 286

estimation of direct and indirect relationship between variables. The prediction variables
were prior learning experiences. Endogenous variables were learning conceptions, strategies
and outcomes. Figure 1 shows four paths with different effects on learning outcomes: from
conception of learning as development of perspectives, use of inter-relating approaches,
conception of learning as intake of information, and use of surface approaches. Based on the
coefficients, the effects of conception of learning as development of perspectives and use of
inter-relating approaches are positive but are only marginally significant (β = .21, p<.10 and

Prior Learning Conceptions of Learning

Experiences Learning Strategies

ASC
LDP .21+
.17+
CL R2 = .31

.41*** .45***
STRAT
.20+
R2 = .14
AI Learning
.36*** LC Outcomes
R2 = .45 UE R2 = .24
.22*
R2 = .18
.17*
SL
.25* .19+
.28***
IR -.22*
II .21*
R2 = .23
R2 = .16 -.17+
CK -.26**

SA
.22*
R2 = .10

Figure 1. Path diagram of prior learning experiences, conceptions of learning, study

+ * ** ***
approaches, and learning outcomes. p<.10; p<.05; p<.01; p<.001. Note: CL – Collaborative
learning; AI – Absorption of information; SL—Situated learning; CK – Construction of
knowledge; LDP – Learning as development of perspectives; LC – Learning as collaboration; II
– Intake of information; ASC – Academic self-confidence; STRAT – Strategic approaches; UE –
Use of evidence; IR – Inter-relating; SA – Surface approaches

β = .19, p<.10, respectively). On the other hand, the effects of conception of learning as
intake of information and use of surface approaches are negative and are significant (β =
-.22, p<.05) and highly significant (β = -.26, p<.001), respectively.

The above result highlights the fact that the manner by which students learn the lesson
determines their learning outcomes (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000). Based on the
result, if learning is through absorption of information, learning outcomes are poor, but higher
when learning is through collaboration, situated learning, and knowledge construction. This

HERDSA 2002 '( PAGE 287

substantiates the efficacy of the methods suggested by the constructivist view of learning
(e.g., Jonassen, 1991; Fosnot, 1996; Duffy & Cunningham, 1996) that emphasizes that
learning is building knowledge through collaboration and engagement in relevant tasks.

The result showing the negative effects of the experience of learning as absorption of
information implies that methods that treat students as empty receptacles, tabula rasa, are
undesirable. In this study, the factor analysis defined these methods to include memorization
and regurgitation of information and less regard for change in ideas and opinions.

Unfortunately, these methods dominate in today’s higher education classrooms. Since these
methods make learning unproductive, efforts should be exerted to replace these with the ones
that provide students with opportunities to learn collaboratively, perform learning activities
relevant to their day-to-day activities, and to construct their own meanings. More recent
works (e.g., Tynjala, 1999; Lord, 1999) have demonstrated the effectiveness of these
methods.

This study, however, showed that academic self-confidence, strategic approaches, and use of
evidence do not affect learning outcomes. For self-confidence, the reason could be gleaned
from Watkins, Reghi, and Astilla’s (1991) study showing an association between the adoption
of deep and more achievement-oriented approaches and positive self-esteem. This suggests
that academic self-confidence is an antecedent of the use of deep learning approaches. In the
case of strategic approaches, the reason could be the ambiguity of the purpose for the
adoption of these strategies. Examining this factor, one could immediately tell that students
employ these approaches to create a condition conducive for learning. Either the purpose is
studying for understanding or for examination is not, however, clear. Thus, like academic
self-confidence, we suspect that a variable mediates the effect of the use of strategic
approaches on learning outcomes. For the variable, use of evidence, its failure to show a
linkage with learning outcome suggests that this factor alone, as a dimension of deep
approaches to learning, is insufficient to affect learning. We speculate that for this strategy to
affect learning outcomes positively, this should be used in concert with other dimensions of
deep approaches.

Conclusion

This study clarified the causal relationships of students’ prior learning experiences,
conceptions of learning, and learning approaches on learning outcomes. As evidence shows,
students’ prior learning experiences shape their learning conceptions and predispose them to
use a certain learning approach. For example, students are likely to think of learning as
development of perspectives and as collaboration if they feel that their learning environment
provides them with an opportunity to build their own knowledge, learn in collaboration with
other students, and engage them in activities relevant to their lives as students and as future
professionals. This will lead them to use deep learning approaches, thus resulting in better
quality learning outcomes. However, if they feel that their learning environment promotes
absorption of information, they are likely to think that learning is intake of information and
use surface learning approaches. The result is a poor quality of learning.

There is, however, a need for more studies to reinforce these findings. One is a replication of
the present study using a wider sample to verify the generalizability of the findings. Looking
at the causal relationships of these variables using other indicators – say, grades or
understanding of subject matters other than environmental problems – is also a facet worth

HERDSA 2002 '( PAGE 288

exploring to find out if the effects of the variables on learning outcomes would vary across
subject areas. These studies should also be aimed at uncovering the effects of such variables
as academic self-confidence, strategic approaches, and use of evidence.

References

Allan, J. (1996). Learning outcomes in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 21(1), 93-108.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and
school. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Burgess, T. (2000). The logic of learning and its implications for higher education. Higher Education Review,
32(2), 53-65.
Crawford, K., Gordon, S., Nichols, J. & Prosser, M. (1998). University mathematics students’ conceptions of
mathematics. Studies in Higher Education, 23(1), 87-94.
Dahlgren, L. O. & Marton, F. (1978). Students’ conceptions of subject matter: An aspect of learning and
teaching in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 23(1), 25-35.
Duffy, T. M. & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of
instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook for research in educational communications and technology
(pp. 170-195). NY.: MacMillan.
Eklund-Myrskog, G. (1997). The influence of the educational context on student nurses’ conceptions of
learning and approaches to learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63(3), 371-381.
Entwistle, N. (2000). Promoting deep learning through teaching and assessment: Conceptual frameworks and
educational contexts. Retrieved from: http://www.ed.ac.uk/etl/publications.html
Entwistle, N., McCune, V., & Walker, P. (2001). Conceptions, styles, and approaches within higher
education: Analytic abstractions and everyday life. In R. J. Sternberg & L. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on
thinking, learning, and cognitive styles (pp. 103-136). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fosnot, C. T. (1996). Constructivism: A psychological theory of learning: In C. T. Fosnot, (Ed.),
Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice (pp. 8-33). NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.
Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need another philosophical paradigm?
Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(1), 5-14.
Lord, T. R. (1999). A comparison between traditional and constructivist teaching in environmental science.
Journal of Environmental Education, 30(3), 22-28.
Prosser, M. & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding learning and teaching: The experience in higher education.
Buckingham: SRHE & Open University Press.
Purdie, N., Hattie, J., & Douglas, G. (1996). Student conceptions of learning and their use of self-regulated
learning strategies: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 87-100.
Tynjala, P. (1999). Towards expert knowledge? A comparison between a constructivist and a traditional
learning environment in the university. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 357- 442.
Van Rossum, E. J. & Schenk, S. M. (1984). The relationships between learning conception, study strategy and
learning outome. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 54 (1), 73-83.
Watkins, D. (2001). Correlates of approaches to learning: A cross-cultural meta-analysis. In R. J. Sternberg &
L. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on thinking and cognitive styles (pp. 165-195). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Watkins, D., Reghi, M. R. & Astilla, E. (1991). The-Asian-learner-as-a-rote-learner stereotype: Myth or
reality? Educational Psychology, 11(1), 21-34.
Waugh, R. F. (1999). Approaches to studying for students in higher education: A Rasch measurement model
analysis. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69(1), 63-79.

Acknowledgements
We sincerely thank the students who participated in this study and Masanori Taguchi and
Yoshiaki Kajii for their assistance in the statistical analysis.

Copyright © 2002 Rotacio S. Gravoso, Arturo E. Pasa, and Toshiaki Mori: The authors assign to HERDSA and educational non-
profit institutions a non-exclusive licence to use this document for personal use and in courses of instruction provided that the
article is used in full and this copyright statement is reproduced. The authors also grant a non-exclusive licence to HERDSA to
publish this document in full on the World Wide Web (prime sites and mirrors) on CD-ROM and in printed form within the
HERDSA 2002 conference proceedings. Any other usage is prohibited without the express permission of the authors.

HERDSA 2002 '( PAGE 289