A Q factor analysis of college undergraduate students' study behaviours

Abstract

This study attempted to better understand the study behaviors of undergraduate students by categorizing students into distinctive typologies based on their self-reported study behaviors through an exploratory approach-Q factor analysis. A sample of 152 undergraduate students completed a survey instrument, the Study Behavior Inventory. The Q factor analysis yielded a two-factor structure. Participants exhibiting the first behavioral type demonstrated reflective, well-organized study behaviors and favored high-level thinking; thus were described as "Organized Holistic Learners". Those exhibiting the second behavioral type were found to manage time poorly and primarily focus on memorizing facts; thus were labeled "Disorganized Procrastinators". Type 1 students had significantly higher average GPAs than Type 2 students. Student type was a significant predictor of academic achievement, as measured by self-reported GPA above and beyond students' attribute variables including sex, age, major, and enrollment status. Theoretical and practical implications were discussed.

The Mediating Role of School Engagement in the Relationship between Attitude toward Learning and Academic Achievement

“…These may originate from the family, school, students' social environment, and their skills and competences, and psychological state. In general, there are positive relationships between students' desire to learn, study tendencies, and academic achievement (Nuthana & Yanagi 2009;Osa-Edohand Alutu 2012;Yang & Bliss, 2014). Students' desire to learn, a sense of curiosity, having a working environment, finding support in their study and achievements have a positive effect on achievement, and when the opposite is valid, school achievement decreases (Uluğ, 2012).…”

Using Leaves as a Model for Teaching Watershed Concepts in Natural Resources Science and Engineering Programs

“…Using concept mapping to construct models has been found to be very useful in scientific inquiry (Ebenezer et al, 2011). Furthermore, students who actively seek the underlying structures (of study materials) that made sense to them were found to have better academic performance (Yang and Bliss, 2014). Well-selected analogies also have an added benefit of having the power to interest and excite student learning (Harrison and Treagust, 2006).…”

A Mixed Methods Study of Pre-­service Teachers’ Attitudes toward LGBTQ Themed Literature

“…Typologies are described by three main characteristics: extreme rankings (statements with z-scores of greater than +/-1), distinguishing statements (statements that have a z-score difference between typologies of greater than +/-1), and consensus statements (statements with a z-score difference between typologies of less than +/-1). While all three of these items provide key characteristics that differentiate typologies, perhaps the most important are the extreme rankings as they strongly define a typology (Yang & Bliss, 2014). Q factor analysis also identifies defining respondents for each typology, these are respondents who "loaded strongly on a factor and thus defined that factor" (Yang & Bliss, 2014, p. 439).…”

“…In Q factor analysis, these factors are known as typologies and while factors in R factor analysis consist of items, factors in Q factor analysis consist of people who load significantly into each factor and are known as defining respondents. In addition to grouping people into factors/typologies, Q factor analysis calculates normalized factor scores (i.e., z scores) that represent an average of scores on each specific statement by all of each factor's defining respondents (Yang & Bliss, 2014).…”

“…In order to answer research questions 2 and 3, open coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) (Brown, 1986;Yang & Bliss, 2014).…”