CHAPTER 1 THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND Introduction

In June 2009, fourteen (14) out of thirty (30) RTU nursing graduates who took the licensure exam passed it; that would be a forty-seven (47) percent passing rate for the College of Nursing. They were the first batch of graduates of the College of Nursing of the Rizal Technological University.

The College of Nursing aims to develop within the student the knowledge, skills and attitudes in the professional practice of nursing which include the ability to analyze and evaluate the practice in context of the local health care system. This research can help in identifying gaps and measure if the nursing department achieves its aim.

One aim of this research is to determine the learning approach of the nursing students and if deemed appropriate recommend interventions to promote an effective approach to teaching and learning for the nursing students.

Since the College of Nursing is at its early stage, there were no measures of its students performance except for the licensure exam. As such, the researchers are interested in the learning process of the nursing students whether they adopt a deep or surface approach to learning.

Students having a deep approach to learning have an intrinsic motivation to learn and to understand the meaning of what is being learned. Students who used a surface approach concentrated on surface features of the learning tasks such as key words or phrases. Their strategies are to memorize and to reproduce elements which seemed appropriate. (Kember, Charlesworth, Davies, McKay, Stott, 2001).

One instrument that could measure the study approach is the Revised Two-Factor Study Process Questionnaire or the R-SPQ-2F developed by Biggs, Kember and Leung (2001). It consisted of twenty items using a rating scale of one to five; ten items measured deep learning and ten items measured surface learning. (Biggs and Kember, 2001 as cited by Knowles and Kirkman). Within each of these two factors it is possible to distinguish strategy and motive subscales. Each of the subscales consisted of five items. The final version of the questionnaire therefore has two main scales, Deep Approach (DA) and Surface Approach, (SA) with four subscales, Deep Motive (DM), Deep Strategy (DS), Surface Motive (SM), and Surface Strategy (SS). (Kember, Charlesworth, Davies, McKay, Stott, 2001).

The R-SPQ-2F was utilized in several studies for nursing students (Tiwari et al., 2006; Leung, Mok, Wong, 2007) where the researches showed varied results. The R-SPQ2F is effective in measuring differences in a problem-based learning but showed negative results for high quality multiple choice tests.

Theoretical Framework

This study is premised on the theory that students adopting the use of a deep learning approach is, in general, associated with higher quality learning outcomes and a surface approach with lower quality learning outcomes. (Gijbels, D., Van de Watering, G., Dochy, F., Van de Bossche, 2005) There are two main influences in the students development of a certain learning approach, personal and the teaching context. On the personal side, some factors in the students background or personality seem to be associated with a Surface Approach (Biggs, 1989) and others with a Deep Approach. (Biggs, 1987) On the teaching side, time pressures, examination stress, and using test items that emphasize low level cognitive outcomes encourage a surface approach. On the other hand, learner activity, studentstudent interaction, and interactive teaching, particularly problem-based teaching encourages a deep approach. (Biggs and Telfer, 1987). Using the R-SPQ-2F, the researchers would like to explore if the nursing students are geared toward a deep or surface approach or both. Where students who adopt an approach that contains elements of both approaches or neither approach tend to fail university examinations (Meyer, Parsons & Dunne 1990: Entwistle, Meyer & Tait 1991). They have learning outcomes significantly worse than their colleagues who adopt either a surface or deep approach. Also, the interaction between a student and the course structure, curriculum content and the methods of teaching and assessment shape whether a student will gravitate toward a surface or deep approach. (Peng and Bettens, 2002)

Statement of the Problem

The study aimed to determine the approach to learning of first year to fourth year nursing students of Rizal Technological University using the Revised Two- Factor Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F).

Specifically, this study sought answer to the following problems.

1. What is the students approach to learning according to the following scales by year level?

The study approaches and subscales are: 1. Deep Approach Deep Motive Deep Strategy 2. Surface Approach Surface Motive Surface Strategy

2. What is the difference between the study approaches and its subscales and the students year level based on the following: A. Deep Approach B. Deep Strategy

C. Deep Motive D. Surface Approach E. Surface Strategy F. Surface Motive

3. What is the difference between the deep and surface scale scores of the nursing students on the following scales?

3.1 Deep Motive vs. Surface Motive 3.2 Deep Strategy vs. Surface Strategy 3.3 Deep Approach vs. Surface Approach

Hypothesis

Ho:Neither one of the four groups in deep and surface scores and subscales are equal. Ha: At least one of the four groups deep and surface scores and subscales are

different from the other three. Ho: There is no significant difference in the mean scores of deep motive and

surface motive scores for the year level. Ha: There is a significant difference in the mean scores of deep motive and

surface motive scores for the year level. Ho: There is no significant difference in the mean scores of deep strategy

surface strategy scores for the year level. Ha: There is a significant difference in the mean scores of deep strategy and

surface strategy scores for the year level. Ho: There is no significant difference in the mean scores of deep approach and

surface approach scores for the year level. Ha: There is a significant difference in the mean scores of deep approach and

surface approach scores for the year level.

Assumptions

It is assumed that the nursing students understand the questionnaire and that there is no need to translate the questionnaire to Filipino since they will be taking the licensure exam which is in English. It also assumed that the selection process of the nursing students is of high standard and the medium of instruction is in English.

Limitations/Delimitations of the Study

The study is limited to the 92 first year to fourth year nursing students of Rizal Technological University during the school year 2008-2009. Twenty-three (23) students per year level were selected from the sample of the nursing students who answered the questionnaire. The instrument used is in English since it is assumed that the selection process of nursing students is of high standard and it is also assumed that the students will also take the nursing board exam which is in English and that the medium of instruction is English. The sampling technique used can be a limitation which will prevent the researcher from generalizing the results of the study. Definition of Terms

R-SPQ-2F refers to The Revised Two Factor Study Process Questionnaire Deep Approach is an approach characterized by students understanding or concentrating on the meaning of the learning material. Deep Motive is an approach characterized by students who show interest from within and often have the initiative to go beyond their syllabus and achieve satisfaction through deep understanding of a subject. Deep Strategy is an approach characterized by being task specific and aim at understanding the meaning of what is being learned; relate the different aspects of the information with one another or relate to previous learning and personal experience. Surface Approach is an approach characterized by students having limited interest in a task and has an extrinsic motive to carry out task for some external achievement. Surface Motive is an approach characterized by students who tend to learn just enough to pass and who are afraid of failure due to social pressure. Surface Strategy is an approach characterized by students who memorize, concentrate on key words or phrases.

CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Student learning is a challenging process dependent on a number of variables both at the learners or personal, the teaching context (Biggs, 1987) and institution level. (Siddiqui, 2006). Learning approach can be modified either by the changes in the personal situation of the student, or a change in the teaching situation may modify the learning approach. For example, the teacher can help the student adjust their learning approach by giving problem-based assessment rather than those that encourage memorizing. This may in turn change the students motivation, which may change the approach used. This may also influence the outcome, the teachers perception of the students and the students own perception.

Students can adopt neither approach nor both approaches. The deep/surface distinction seems dichotomous but the distinction between the two approaches is not absolute. Although memorization is ordinarily associated with surface learning as a strategy to recall information for assessment purposes it may play a part in both approaches. (Kember, 1996)

Assessment methods can influence the learning approaches of nursing students. Assessments designed to assess understanding rather than rote learning can contribute to a deep learning approach. Multiple-choice questions can be formulated at high cognitive levels for nursing assessments. (Leung, Mok and Wong, 2006)

The original research which characterized deep and surface approaches was pioneered by Marton and Slj (1976) as cited by Kember, Charlesworth, Davies, McKay, Stott (2001). The categories used to describe approaches to learning were derived from

interviews and observation of students performing normal learning tasks such as reading academic articles and identified two discrete approaches to reading articles. When students adopt a deep approach they have an intention to understand the authors meaning and linking it to their experiences. Students adopting a deep approach concentrated on the underlying meaning of an article, with the intent to understand the real message of a piece of writing or the underlying purpose of an academic task. Learning approaches have a motivation and a strategy element which are intimately elated. Students attempt to understand a topic if it is of real interest to them or if they can see its relevance to their current or future professional roles. On the other hand, a surface approach is associated with limited interest in a task or an extrinsic motivation. (Kember, Charlesworth, Davies, McKay, Stott, 2001).

Surface Approach

Surface approach is studying merely for the intention of reproducing information without any further analysis. Students who memorize terms without understanding the meaning of the word are an example. Surface and deep approaches relate to rehearsal and the general cognitive processes of coding. (Phan and Deo, 2006)

According to Tang (1994) of Hong Kong Polytechnic, students adopting a surface approach have an extrinsic motive to carry out the task for some external achievements like a high grades or passing the subject other than the present task itself. This approach aims at avoiding failure but with investing minimum effort.

These students focus on isolated facts and fail to see the relation among the information. According to Peng and Bettens (2002), surface motivated learners are encouraged in a society where the rewards for staff that perform are limited by their education level. Students who are only motivated by extrinsic factors tend to be less interested in most of the knowledge they learn during their days in the university, believing that it will not help them in their future career. Thus, these students will tend to learn just enough to pass, and they are afraid of failure because of social pressures.

Students who use a surface strategy are dependent on the lecturers and expect to learn everything from them. They are also found to be syllabus bound. Most of these students avoid disagreement with the lecturers, perhaps as a sign of respect or perhaps they are afraid that it will affect their grades. (Peng and Bettens, 2002)

Deep Approach Students showing intrinsic motivation are likely to use the deep approach to learning. Such students are able to adapt to the ever-changing environment by continuous learning, helping them to discover as well as to understand new ideas. Satisfaction is often achieved through deep understanding of a subject. Deep learners are flexible and all rounded. Thus, it is expected that they are able to excel in almost any field into which they venture. (Peng and Bettens, 2002) Students who are engaging in a deep approach have an intrinsic motivation of felt need based on interest in the task. The strategies thus adopted are task specific and aim at seeking and understanding the meaning of what is being learned. These students not only relate the different aspects of the information with one another, but also relate them to

their previous learning and their personal experiences. Deeply motivated learners are believed to show interest from within and often have the initiative to go beyond their syllabus to satisfy their thirst for knowledge. (Peng and Bettens, 2002)

According to Laird, (2005), the reason deep learning is important is because students who use such an approach tend to earn higher grades, and retain, integrate and transfer information at higher rates. Deep learning is associated with an enjoyable learning experience while the surface approach tends to be less satisfying.

According to Gijbels et al (2005) although the results seem to be inconsistent, the use of a deep learning approach is, in general, associated with higher quality learning outcomes and a surface approach with lower quality learning outcomes (Crawford, Gordon, Nicholas, & Prosser, 1998; Hazel, Prosser, & Trigwell, 1996; Snelgroove & Slater, 2003; Trigwell & Prosser, 1991; Van Rossum & Schenk, 1984; Zeegers, 2001).

The result of a study by Tiwari et al (2003) on the effect of problem-based learning on nursing students resulted that the students adopted a deep approach to learning during the period of clinical education. description of their clinical education experiences like motivated to learn; self-direction in learning; active, interactive and student-centered learning; and enjoyment in learning suggest that they adopted the deep approach.

Students in general, adjust their styles of learning based upon the demands of the course that they are enrolling in. (Biggs, Kember, & Leung, 2001). In a study by Davidson (2001) on accounting students on the relationship between performance on complex

examination question and the use of a deep study approach shows that prior academic achievement, as indicated by cumulative GPA, and motivation for taking the course, as indicated by students plans to seek an accounting job, are the best predictors of examination performance.

Landbeck and Mugler (1997) conducted a study on tertiary students at University of South Pacific (USP) and results showed that the students at USP displayed a lower percentage of higher-order conception of learning resulted from a highly examination driven curricula as well as lecture-based transmission mode of teaching preferred by students.

According to Roach (2000) and Ramsden (1992) students who graduate from universities are unable to form a deep understanding of their field or they do not think like a professional. The students graduate with only a surface knowledge of their field. It has been widely accepted that such dispositions are due to expectations, held by students and lecturers alike, that university learning is quantitative. Qualitative approaches to learning improve critical thinking skills and understanding of subject material. A study was conducted by Bernardo in 2003 using the Learning Process Questionnaire (LPQ) which was the old version of the Study Process Questionnaire. Bernardo (2003) assessed the learning approach of Filipino students and results showed that the LPQ was a valid instrument to assess the learning approaches of non lowachieving Filipino college students. The Deep and Achieving subscales scores of the LPQ were positively related to academic achievement.

In a study by Stiernborg, Zaldivas & Santiago (1996) where they assessed the comparative effectiveness of didactic teaching and experiential learning using nursing students from Manila as participants shows that students in the experiential group has significantly higher scores than the didactic group. This research was published in Australia. Studies on learning approach were conducted in Hong Kong (1998), Singapore (2002), Australia (2003, 2006), Europe (2005) and Pakistan (2006) with limited researches on learning approach here in the Philippines most specifically on the learning approach of nursing students. This is an enough reason to focus the study on the learning approach of students most especially in the field of nursing since this is one of the sought after course in our country today.

CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Research Method This research adopted the descriptive method since it is used to describe different aspects of a behavior or psychological phenomena (Wagner, 2008). It involves the collection of data in order to test the hypothesis or to answer questions concerning the

current status of the subjects of this study.

Population Frame and Sampling Scheme

The sampling used for this study was convenience sampling. A convenience sample is a group of individuals who (conveniently) are available for study (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2006). Nursing students who were present and available on the first day of the second semester of the school year 2008-2009 were administered with the R-SPQ-2F. From the total population of 503 students enrolled, 182 students took the exam with 88 students coming from the first year, 40 students from the second year, 33 students from the third year and 23 students from the fourth year. From the sample, 23 students were randomly selected from first year to third year, with all the 23 students from fourth year included in the study.

Instrument Used

The researcher used the Revised Two-Factor Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ2F) developed by Biggs and Kember (2001) which can be employed to measure learning or teaching. It consisted of twenty items using a rating scale of one to five; ten items measured deep learning and ten items measured surface learning. (Biggs and Kember, 2001 as cited by Knowles and Kirkman). Within each of these two factors it is possible to

distinguish strategy and motive subscales. Each of the subscales consisted of five items. The final version of the questionnaire therefore has two main scales, Deep Approach (DA) and Surface Approach, (SA) with four subscales, Deep Motive (DM), Deep Strategy (DS), Surface Motive (SM), and Surface Strategy (SS). (Kember, Charlesworth, Davies, McKay, Stott, 2001). The range on each category of approach to learning is from 10 to 50, ten questions with five being the high score on each question. Within each approach, there are subcategories of Motive and Strategy, each with five questions. The range in scores for these is from 5 to 25. A scoring key was provided by the instrument developer in computing for the subscales motive and strategy.

The first Study Process Questionnaire (SPQ) consists of 42 items, seven for each of the sub-scales surface strategy, surface motive, deep strategy, deep motive, achieving strategy and achieving motive. It contains an achieving approach scale in addition to ones for deep and surface approaches. The Revised Two-Factor Study Process Questionnaire was developed to provide a shortened version dealing only with deep and surface approaches, principally for work on teaching effectiveness and staff development. It can be administered quickly and easily by a regular teacher, for use in monitoring teaching contexts. (Kember, Charlesworth, Davies, McKay, Stott, 2001).

Much of the 'approaches to learning' researches have been conducted with higher education students in Australia and Hong Kong and this kind of measurement is viewed as a valid and reliable way to assess learning. The study process questionnaire is a valid and

useful tool for nurse teachers to gain knowledge about student nurses' approaches to learning. (Slater, 2003)

Reliability Cronbachs alpha for internal consistency of the twenty items was 0.78. The internal consistency of the two scales Surface Approach and Deep Approach each having ten items was 0.77 and 0.66 respectively. The reliability indices for four subscales was also calculated and are almost identical to the reliability coefficient in earlier study (Biggs, Kember, Leung, 2001) (Siddiqui, 2006) Table 1.

According to McIver and Carmines (1981) as cited by Gliem and Gliem (2003) Cronbachs alpha reliability coefficient normally ranges between 0 and 1. However, there is actually no lower limit to the coefficient. The closer Cronbachs alpha coefficient is to 1.0 the greater the internal consistency of the items in the scale.

Table 1- Reliability Coefficient for the Scales and Subscales Scales and Subscales Chronbach alpha value Biggs et. Al. Leung & Chan ( 2001) ( 2001) 0.73 0.62 0.63 0.64 0.72 0.57 0.76 0.61 0.63 0.73 0.59 0.58

Siddiqui ( 2006) 0.75 0.58 0.63 0.73 0.59 0.58

Current Study (2008) 0.77 0.48 0.53 0.66 0.57 0.56

Deep Approach (DA) Deep Motive (DM) Deep Strategy (DS) Surface Approach (SA) Surface Motive (SM) Surface Strategy (SS)

Data Gathering Procedure

The researchers handed the letter of request to the Dean of College of Nursing regarding the proposal to conduct their study in this college and to utilize the selected nursing students as respondents of the present study. The R-SPQ-2F was administered to the nursing students who were present during the first day of second semester of the school year 2008-2009. The data gathered were tallied and computed using the Tools Analysis of Microsoft Excel.

Statistical Treatment of Data

To compare the differences among the approaches the One Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used. The ANOVA is used to test hypotheses about population means and used to two or more groups to see if the groups are affected. The F Test was used to test for the significance of the two types of group (Downie & Heath, 1983). Both computation utilized the Data Analysis tools of Microsoft Excel.

To compute for the differences among the year level per subscale, the T-Test for Paired Mean in the Data Analysis tools of Microsoft Excel was used. The mean and standard deviation was also computed using the Data Analysis tools of Microsoft Excel.

CHAPTER FOUR PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter deals with the presentation of results, analysis and interpretation of the profile and competencies of human resource practitioners.

The students approach to learning of the respondents according to the components of the selected variables is presented in the next table. Table 2- Mean Scores and Standard Deviation of First Year to Fourth Year Students on Deep and Surface Approach and its Subscale

Year Level

Deep Approach (DA) Mean 34.13 34.48 33.30 34.70

Deep Motive (DM)

Deep Strategy (DS) SD 3.2 3.6 3.1 2.9

Surface Approach (SA) Mean 26.48 27.13 27.09 25.35

Surface Motive (SM)

Surface Strategy (SS)

Freshmen Sophomores Juniors Seniors

SD Mean 6.0 17.91 7.2 18.52 5.9 17.35 4.9 17.78

SD Mean 3.6 16.22 4.2 15.96 3.4 15.96 2.9 16.91

SD Mean 5.7 11.78 5.5 12.48 5.5 12.13 5.5 10.87

SD Mean SD 3.2 14.70 3.8 2.7 14.65 3.7 4.0 14.96 3.1 2.9 14.48 3.5

Table 2 shows the mean scores for deep and surface approach and their subscales. The deep approach scores of 34.13 for freshmen; 34.48 for sophomores, 33.30 for juniors and 34.70 for seniors is higher than the surface approach of 16.22, 15.96, 15.96 and 16.91 for freshmen to seniors respectively. This implies that the nursing students have a deep approach to learning and is interested in the topic discussed in class. This could be attributed to the students desire to enroll in nursing because they are internally motivated to learn and be competent in their field.

The sophomore students got the highest surface approach score of 27.13, highest surface motive scores of 12.48 and a high deep motive score of 18.52 which suggests that the sophomore students alternately uses the deep and surface motive where they may find the topics interesting but would like to pass the course while doing as little work as possible. Where students adopt an approach that contains elements of both approaches or neither approach, they tend to fail university examinations. (Meyer, Parsons & Dunne 1990: Entwistle, Meyer & Tait 1991), or have learning outcomes significantly worse than their colleagues who adopt either a surface or deep approach.

The result is similar to the study conducted by Fourie (2003) students in their second year of study are relying more on memorizing than during the first or third year of

study and students with a more dominant surface approach to learning are not the students who will be doing that extra bit in their studies.

The junior students ranked first in the surface strategy subscale with a score of 14.96 and ranked last in the deep approach with a score of 33.30. This implies that their strategy to learning is more on memorization and studying only topics that they expect will be in the exam. This could be attributed with the kind of assessment technique employed by the professor. According to Kember (1996) as cited by Fourie (2003), Memorization is

ordinarily associated with surface learning as a strategy to recall information for assessment purposes that may play a part in both approaches.

The succeeding presentation tells whether there is a significant difference between the study approach and the students year level. Table 3- Mean differences between year levels on approaches to study Scale Deep Approach Source of Variation Between Groups (Year Level) Within Groups Total Between Groups (Year Level) Within Groups Total Between Groups (Year Level) Within Groups Sum of Squares 25.78 3256.09 3281.87 14.09 905.65 919.74 16.22 1130.70 df 3 88 91 3 88 91 3 88 Mean Square 8.594 37.001 4.696 10.292 5.406 12.849 0.42 2.71 not significant 0.46 2.71 not significant F 0.23 F crit Interpretation

2.71 not significant

Deep Strategy

Deep Motive

Total 1146.91 91 Surface Between 47.60 3 15.866 0.51 2.71 not significant Approach Groups (Year Level) Within 2715.39 88 30.857 Groups Total 2762.99 91 Surface Between 2.70 3 0.899 0.073 2.71 not significant Strategy Groups (Year Level) Within 1084.78 88 12.327 Groups Total 1087.48 91 Surface Between 32.99 3 10.996 1.04 2.71 not significant Motive Groups (Year Level) Within 928.87 88 10.555 Groups Total 961.86 91 Table 3 shows the ANOVA result for the comparison of the approach and its subscales per year level. This table shows that the F value of 0.23 for deep approach, 0.46 for deep strategy, 0.42 for deep motive, 0.51 for surface approach, 0.073 for surface strategy and 1.04 for surface motive is not significant. The null hypothesis is accepted at 0.05 significance level which states that Neither one of the four groups in deep and surface approach scores and their subscales are equal. This implies that year level does not affect the deep and surface approach scores and their subscales. The homogeneity of the scores can be attributed to the sampling technique used which is the convenience sampling. According to Siddiqui (2006), one explanation for no difference can be the homogeneity of the sample. Other studies suggest that as the year of study increases, the student also increase their adoption of a surface approach. (Fourie, 2003)

The differences between deep and surface approach and their subscales for all year level are presented in Table 4.

Table 4- Differences between deep and surface approach and their subscales for all year level Scales Deep Vs Surface Motives Freshmen Sophomores Juniors Seniors Deep Vs Surface Strategies Freshmen Sophomores Juniors Seniors Deep Vs Surface Approach Freshmen Sophomores Juniors Seniors p>0.05 Computed Value 6.16 5.27 4.33 8.46 1.69 1.86 1.91 3.10 5.75 4.77 4.50 7.63 Df 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 Tabular Value 2.07 2.07 2.07 2.07 2.07 2.07 2.07 2.07 2.07 2.07 2.07 2.07 Interpretation significant significant significant significant not significant not significant not significant significant significant significant significant significant

Table 4 shows that there is a significant difference between the Deep Motive vs. Surface Motive of freshmen to senior students. The computed score of 6.16, 5.27, 4.33 and 8.46 is greater than the tabular value of 2.07. Therefore, the alternative hypothesis is accepted that there is a significant difference in the mean scores of deep motive and surface motive scores for the year level. This implies that the students work hard because they find their topic interesting and gives them a feeling of deep personal satisfaction. This can be attributed with the students personal desire to pursue nursing as their career because of the internal motivation or satisfaction they get from studying the course and also an external motivation to succeed in this career because this course also offers great amount of money abroad.

According to Peng & Bettens (2002), a high score on Deep Motive subscale

suggests that deeply motivated learners are believed to show interest from within and often have the initiative to go beyond their syllabus to satisfy their thirst for knowledge. Kember et.al., (2001) also stated that students attempt to understand a topic if they can see its relevance to their current or future professional roles.

According to McManus and Winder (2001) as cited by Phan (2001), the R-SPQ-2F is designed to evaluate how students approach learning the topics or courses that are most important to them. The nursing students may have viewed the topics and their course as important most especially the senior students who are graduating and needs the motive to learn in preparation for the licensure exam.

In the Deep vs. Surface Strategies, the computed score of 1.69 for freshmen, 1.86 for sophomore, 1.91 for junior students is less than the tabular value of 2.07 in the 0.05 level of significance, therefore, we accept the null hypothesis that states There is no significant difference in the mean scores of Deep Strategy vs. Surface Strategy scores for the year level. This implies that the freshmen to junior students alternatively uses the deep and surface strategy in learning, they may try to study topics until they understand them but they may or only study topics which they think will be in the exam.

With reference to the deep motive vs. surface motive scores of freshmen to junior students, results suggest that the nursing students are deeply motivated to learn but employ both the deep and surface strategy in their approach to learning. According to Kember (1996) as cited by Fourie (2003), Memorization is ordinarily associated with surface learning as a strategy to recall information for assessment purposes that may play a part in

both approaches. The role of the teacher is very critical in this area.

According to Leung, Mok and Wong (2006), Assessment methods can influence the learning approaches of nursing students. Assessments designed to assess understanding rather than rote learning can contribute to a deep learning approach. Multiple-choice questions can be formulated at high cognitive levels for nursing assessments.

According to Meyer, Parsons & Dunne (1990) and Entwistle, Meyer & Tait (1991), Where students adopt an approach that contains elements of both approaches or neither approach, they tend to fail university examinations or have learning outcomes significantly worse than their colleagues who adopt either a surface or deep approach. We would like to see these students as having a deep strategy once they reach their senior year as is the case of the senior students.

The senior students computed value of 3.10 for the Deep Strategy vs. Surface Strategy is greater than the tabular value of 2.07. in the 0.05 level of significance. Therefore, we accept the alternative hypothesis that there is a significant difference in the mean scores of Deep Strategy and Surface Strategy scores for the year level. This implies that the senior students are inclined to spend extra time trying to obtain information about new topics and they do extra work like looking at the suggested readings so they can understand the topic better. The senior students work hard, do extra work and test themselves until they completely understand the topic.

In the Deep vs. Surface Approach, the result of 5.75, 4.77. 4.50 and 7.63 for freshmen to senior students respectively is greater than the tabular value of 2.07 at the 0.05 level therefore, we accept the alternative hypothesis that :there is a significant difference in the mean scores of deep approach and surface approach scores for the year level. Nursing students are deeply motivated to learn, and relate the different aspects of the information with one another, but they also relate them to their previous learning and their personal experiences. (Tang, 1994)

According to Laird, Shoup & Kuh, (2005) on average seniors frequently (often or very often) engage in deep approaches to learning.

CHAPTER FIVE SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter presents the summary of findings, the conclusions arrived at and recommendations made in the light of the findings of the study.

This study sought to find out the Learning Approaches of Nursing Students Using the Revised Two Factor Study Process Questionnaire Specifically it sought to answer the following; 1. What is the students approach to learning according to the following scales by year level? 1.1 The study approaches are: Deep Approach

Deep Motive Deep Strategy Surface Approach Surface Motive Surface Strategy

2. Is there a significant difference between the study approach and the subscales and students year level? 3. Is there a significant difference between the deep and surface scale scores of the nursing students on the following scales?

3.1.1 Deep Motive vs. Surface Motive 3.1.2 Deep Strategy vs. Surface Strategy 3.1.3 Deep Approach vs. Surface Approach The population of the study was composed of 92 nursing students. The learning approaches were categorized as deep or surface with two subscales per category. For deep approach the subscales were deep motive and deep strategy. For surface approach the subscales were surface motive and surface strategy. The nursing students were grouped according to their year level. The weighted mean was used for analyzing the data on the approach, strategies and motive of the nursing students. To find out significant difference between the learning approach and the subscales the ANOVA was used. To test if there is a significant difference between surface approach vs. deep approach, surface strategy vs. deep strategy and surface motive vs. deep motive, the t-test for correlated means was used.

All the computations used the Tools Analysis of Microsoft Excel.

Summary of Findings

1. The freshmen to senior nursing students learning approach, strategy and motive were dominantly deep approach. 2. The senior students got the highest mean score of 34.70 in the Deep Approach, 16.91, in the Deep Strategy and got the lowest mean score of 25.35 in the Surface Approach. The sophomore students got the highest Surface Approach mean score of 27.13 and high Surface Motive mean score of 12.48 in comparison with the other year level. The junior students got the highest Surface Strategy mean score of 14.96, the lowest mean score of 17.35 in Deep Motive and lowest mean score of 33.30 in Deep Approach. 3. The F value of 0.23 for Deep Approach, 0.46 for Deep Strategy, 0.42 for Deep Motive, 0.51 for Surface Approach, 0.073 for Surface Strategy and 1.04 for Surface Motive at 0.05 levels is not significant. 4. The computed score of 6.16 for freshmen, 5.27 for sophomores, 4.33 for juniors and 8.46 for seniors is greater than the tabular value of 2.07 in the 0.05 level of significance using the t-test for paired mean. Therefore, the alternative hypothesis is accepted that there is a significant difference in the mean scores of Deep Motive and Surface Motive scores for the year level. The computed score of 1.69 for freshmen, 1.86 for sophomore, 1.91 for junior students is less than the tabular value of 2.07 in the 0.05 level of significance, using the t-test for paired mean Therefore, we accept the null hypothesis that states There is no

significant difference in the mean scores of Deep Strategy vs. Surface Strategy scores for the year level. The senior students computed value of 3.10 for the Deep Strategy vs. Surface Strategy is greater than the tabular value of 2.07 in the 0.05 level of significance using the t-test for paired mean. Therefore, we accept the alternative hypothesis that there is a significant difference in the mean scores of Deep Strategy and Surface Strategy scores for the year level. The computed value of 5.75 for freshmen, 4.77 for sophomores, 4.50 for juniors and 7.63 for senior students is greater than the tabular value of 2.07 at the 0.05 level of significance In the Deep vs. Surface Approach, the result of 5.75, 4.77. 4.50 and 7.63 for freshmen to senior students respectively is greater than the tabular value of 2.07 at the 0.05 level of significance using the t-test for paired mean. Therefore, we accept the alternative hypothesis that :there is a significant difference in the mean scores of Deep Approach and Surface Approach scores for the year level.

CONCLUSION 1. The nursing students predominantly adopt a deep approach to learning especially the senior students. They show an intrinsic interest in the topic and achieve satisfaction through deep understanding of the topic. 2. The result of the comparison of the deep and surface approaches and their subscales shows no significance which could be attributed to the sampling technique used in the study. The sample is homogenous. 3. The freshmen to junior students both uses the deep and surface strategy like memorization or they may spend extra time trying to obtain information on a

topic but only those given in the class. This could be because of the assessment technique that emphasizes a quantitative based learning or the method of teaching applied by the teacher. These students are syllabus bound (Peng and Bettens, 2002), they would only study topics that they are sure will appear in their exam. The difference in the score of senior students may be due to their exposure to actual nursing experience in their internship. The test was conducted in the first day of the second semester of 2008-2009 and the reason not all senior students participated in the survey is because they were on duty in their internship. Another reason for the differences in the scores for the Deep and Surface strategy is the nursing course itself. It is very expensive to enroll in a nursing course and a failing grade is not the best thing to have, therefore the students strategy to pass is to memorize, because that is what it is expected of them to pass the subject, real learning is sacrificed. In our culture, a person with a diploma is highly recognized most especially in the field of nursing and passing the nursing licensure examination.

Recommendations 1. The deep approach to learning should be promoted by teachers and since the nursing students approach is the deep one, it should be maintained, monitored and established. 2. It is recommended that a randomized sampling technique be used to be able to generalize the result to the population. 3. A different method of administering the R-SPQ-2F is by asking students to rate the learning approach for a particular subject to specifically measure that area or

method of instruction which highly influences the learning approach of the students. The method of teaching should promote a deep approach to learning by utilizing experience-based learning or problem-solving learning and less on memorization or quantitative learning. 4. The R-SPQ-2F can be administered on the first and last day of every semester to gauge the students learning approach and see if they tend towards a deep or surface approach. 5. The R-SPQ-2F can be administered to all student of RTU to establish norms among the colleges. 6. A Filipino version of the test can be made to fit low-achievement tertiary students. 7. Variables affecting the approach can be explored for further researches like correlating the results to the result of the nursing board examination. 8. Results of the study can be utilized by the guidance counselor to identify areas of students that need improvement and provide programs to encourage students to apply a deep approach to learning. 9. Other measures of learning can also be used and correlate it with the result of the R-SPQ-2F. 10. The instrument can also be enhanced to change other items that will best make the construct clear especially on surface strategy because it has the lowest reliability coefficient.

Bibliography

Bernardo, A. B. I. (2003). Approaches to learning and academic achievement among Filipino students. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 164, 101-114.Davidson, R.A. (2002) Relationship of Study Approach and exam performance. Journal of Accounting Education. 20, 29-44 Issue 1 Biggs, J., Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y.P. (2001). The revised two-factor Study Process Questionnaire: R-SPQ- 2F. British Journal of Education Psychology, 71, 133-149. Bray, M., Adamson, B., & Mason, M. (2007) Comparative Education Research: Approaches and Methods. Volume 19 of CERC studies in comparative education. (p. 301) Davidson, R.A. (2002) Relationship of Study Approach and exam performance. Journal of Accounting Education. 20, 29-44 Issue 1 Deo, B. & Phan, H. P. (2006) "Approaches to Learning in Educational psychology and Mathematics: A comparative Analysis in the South Pacific Region. Australian Association for Research in Education Downie, N.M., & Heath, R.W. (1983). Basic Statistics Methods. Harper and Row, Publisher Forbes, H. B. (2000) "Beliefs and Learning Approaches of Undergraduate Nursing Students in a Problem-based Learning (PBL) Environment Australian Electronic Journal of Nursing Education Volume 5. No. 2 march Fraenkel, J.R & Wallen, N.E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education. McGraw Hill.

Gijbels, D., Van de Watering, G., Dochy, F., Van de Bossche, (2005), The relationship between students' approaches to learning and the assessment of learning outcomes. European Journal of Psychology of Education Vol 20, Version 4, 327-341 Gliem, J.A & Gliem, R.R. (2003) Calculating, Interpreting and reporting Cronbach Alpha Reliability Coefficient for Likert Scales. Midwest Research to Practice Conference in Adult Continuing and Community Education. Leung, S.F., Mok, E., & Wong, D. (2008) The impact of assessment methods on the Learning of Nursing students. Nurse Education Today. volume 28. Issue 6, pages 711719 Mansouri, P.,Soltani, F., Rahermi, S., Nasab, M.M., Ayatollahi, A.R., & Nekooeian, A.A. (2006) Nursing and Midwifery Students' Approaches to Study and Learning. Journal of Advanced Nursing Vol. 54. pp 351-358 Mugler, F. & Landbeck, R (1997) Learning in the South Pacific and Phenomenography across Culture, Higher Education Research and Development, 16 (2) June, 227-239 Nelson Laird,T.F., Shoup, R., & Kuh, G.D. (2005) Thomas et. Al, "Deep learning and College Outcomes: Do fields of study differ" Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the Association for Institutional Research, may 29-June 1, 2005 San Diego, CA Peng, L.L. & Bettens, R.A.(2002) NUS Students and Biggs' Learning Process Questionnaire CDTL Brief, 5 (7) Access online April 22, 2008 Phan, H. P. Examination of Student Learning approaches, reflective thinking, and epistemological beliefs: A latent variable approach. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, No. 10, Vol4(3), 2006 Roach, A. (2000) Qualitative Learning and the SOLO Taxonomy. Siddiqui, Z. S. (2006) Study Approaches of Students in Pakistan: The Revised to-factor Study Process Questionnaire Experience, Occasional Report 1, December 2006 Snelgrove, S. & Slater, J. (2003) Approaches to Learning: Psychometric testing of a study process questionnaire. Journal of Advance Nursing, 2003, 43, 495-505 Snelgrove, S. (2004) Approaches to Learning of Student nurses. Nurse Education Today, 2004, 24, 605-614 Stiernborg M, Zaldivar SB, Santiago EG. (1996) Effect of didactic teaching and experiential learning on nursing students' AIDS-related knowledge and attitudes. AIDS Care. 1996 Oct; 8(5):601-8.PMID: 8893910 Tang, C. (2008) Effects of Modes of Assessment on Student's Preparation Strategies. Accessed online April 29, 2008

Tiwari, A., et. Al., (2003) The Effects of Problem-based learning on students. An approaches to Learning in the context of clinical nursing education. Nurse Education Today. Volume 26, Issue 5, Pages 430-438 Trigwell, K. & Prosser, M. (1991) Relating approaches to study and the quality of learning outcomes at the course level, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 61, 265-275

LEARNING APPROACHES OF NURSING STUDENTS OF RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY USING THE REVISED TWO-FACTOR STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE

A Research Paper Presented to The Research and Development Center Of the Rizal Technological University

In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Research, Extension and Production Services

By MS. AGNES F. MONTALBO DR. MERLENE M. BERNAL

APRIL 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Research Abstract Table of Contents Lists of Tables CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND Introduction Theoretical framework Statement of the Problem Hypothesis Assumptions 1 3 4 5 6 ii iii v

Scope and Delimitation Definition of Terms II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Conceptual Literature III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Research Method Used Population Frame and Sampling Scheme Instrument used Data Gathering Procedure Statistical Treatment IV PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA Mean Scores and Standard Deviation of Freshmen to Senior Students on deep and Surface Approach and its Subscales Mean Differences Between Year Levels on Approaches to Study Differences between deep and surface approach and their subscales for all year level V SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION Findings 8

6 7

13 13 14 16

19

21 22

27

Conclusions Recommendations BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDICES Appendix A Survey Permit Appendix B The Revised Two Factor Study Process Questionnaire

29 30 32

34 35