Approaches to Studying: A Cross-Sectional Comparison of Occupational Therapy Students in Six Education Programs in Norway

Abstract

Students' approaches to studying have been associated with their academic performance. Although previous research suggests that the cultural and educational context may influence approaches to studying, few studies have investigated differences in study approaches across education programs. The aim of this study was to examine whether approaches to studying differed among occupational therapy students enrolled in six different educational programs in Norway. From a population of 308 students, 187 first-year occupational therapy students in six educational programs in Norway were recruited. The students provided their sociodemographic information and completed the Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students (ASSIST), and group differences were analyzed with Chi-square tests and one-way analyses of variance. Scores on the deep and surface approach scales did not differ significantly among the students in the six educational programs, while there was an overall difference in scores on the strategic approach scale. Group differences regarding the subscales were minor, and only a few of the pairwise differences reached statistical significance. Differences at the education program level appear not to be important for the interpretation of differences in study approaches among students. Comments The authors report that they have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Psychometric properties and associations between subscales of a study approach measure

“…= communalities. The reported Cronbach's α are based on a previous study with the same sample (Gramstad et al, 2020).…”

“…The study is a sub‐study of a larger study of occupational therapy students. The research project as a whole is a longitudinal study of study approaches (Gramstad et al, 2020; Mørk et al, 2020) and the perceived learning environment (Bonsaksen et al, 2019; Bonsaksen, Gramstad, Mørk, & Johnson, 2019; Thordardottir et al, 2020; Thygesen et al, 2020) among undergraduate occupational therapy students in Norway. One student cohort was followed‐up with one annual survey in each of their 3 study years.…”

“…Moreover, recent studies have suggested that subscales belonging to different factors may correlate systematically. For example, Gramstad et al (2020) proposed a relationship between lower "achievement" (part of the strategic approach scale) and higher "lack of purpose" (part of the surface approach scale) in their interpretation of the differences found between the six education programs they investigated. Papinczak's (2009) cluster-analytic approach also suggested that a deeper understanding of the associations between different aspects of the deep, strategic and surface study approaches is warranted, as it can potentially lead to enhanced support of students throughout the learning process.…”

Occupational therapy students’ preferences for teaching and course design across a three-year undergraduate education program

“…This longitudinal observational study is part of a larger inquiry regarding the perceived learning environment (Thordardottir et al , 2020; Thygesen et al , 2020), approaches to studying (DaLomba et al , 2020; Gramstad et al , 2020; Mørk et al , 2020; Thørrisen et al , 2020) and academic performance (Bonsaksen et al , 2021) among occupational therapy students in Norway. The study employed data from the students in their first, second and third year of study.…”

Predictors of students’ participation in a learning environment survey with annual follow-ups

“…Entwistle and colleagues reported very good reliability measures for the deep (0.82) and strategic (0.83) approach scales, while reliability measures have been in the lower range (0.65) for the surface approach scale [ 22 ]. In this study, among the participants in the first wave (first-year students), internal consistency estimates (Cronbach’s α) for the study approach scales were 0.71 (deep approach), 0.84 (strategic approach), and 0.76 (surface approach) [ 25 ].…”