SAJHE/SATHO VOL 13 NO 3 1999
Understanding learning: a survey of
undergraduate mathematics students'
perceptions
A Mji
University of Transkei
Reproduced by Sabinet Gateway under licence granted by the Publisher (dated 2009).
INTRODUCTION
T he general aims of higher education have been
described in terms of desired learning outcomes.
These can be categorised into subject-based . perso-
nal transferable and generic academic outcomes
(Allan 1996). Subject-based are those that are
domain specific. while personal transferable and
generic academic include general skills like critical
thinking . using information. teamwork and commu-
nication skills (Allan 1996). Likewise. Atkins (1995)
has shown that the general purposes of higher
education include inter alia providing a general
educational experience of intrinsic worth in its own
right; preparing students for knowledge creation.
application and dissemination; preparing students
for a specific profession or occupation; and preparing
them for general employment. Preparing students for
knowledge creation. application and dissemination.
involves the acquisit ion of conceptual frameworks of
the subject studied. deep knowledge on aspects of
the subject. an understanding of the subject's
methodologies and the experience of knowledge
creation (Atkins 1995). To determine the success of
the different preparations. it is necessary to investi-
gate higher education students' perceptions of ap-
proaches to learning in order to understand and
consolidate these with the general aims. Such an
undertaking will have positive effects on desired
learning outcomes in higher education.
Recently there has been an increasing interest in
improving student learning within the context of
teaching and assessment (Martin & Ramsden 1987).
Generally it is accepted that students in higher
education show a versatility in their choice of learning
approach (Ramsden & Entwistle 1981 ; Laurillard
1987) . The choice depends on factors such as interest
in the topic. academic motivation. the pressure of
demands in their time. the total amount of content in
the course. the way a task is introduced and their
perceptions of what will be demanded of them in
subsequent evaluations or applications of the material
(Entwistle & Ramsden 1983; Ramsden 1985).
The phrase 'approach to learning' is applicable in two
quite different ways (Biggs 1993). In one manner it is
used when students are asked to respond to ques-
tionnaires. where what is tapped is their typical
method of studying (Watkins & Regmi 1995). That
is. in a dispos itional sense. students are required to
reveal their learning tendencies . In another manner.
which involves phenomenographic studies. the term
refers to the process students used. to tackle a
particular learning task (Watkins & Regmi 1995).
An approach to learning is neither something that a
student possesses nor a particular characteristic of the
student. but a manifestation of what a specific task or
set of tasks mean to him or her. An approach
describes a relation between the student and the
learning taking place and has elements of the
situation as seen by the student and elements of the
student in it (Ramsden 1992) Depending on the
situation . students are reported to follow various
approaches which contain both a motive and a
155
 ISSN 1011 -3487
strategy that students find suitable in helping them to
succeed. Examples of these are surface, deep and
strateg ic approaches.
A surface approach involves a minimalist engagement
with the task, where the student focuses on memoris-
ing or applying procedures unreflectively. Students
adopting a surface approach ignore or tend to be
unaware of the meaning of what they are learning by
resorting to rote learning so as to reproduce enough
facts to pass examinations (Watkins & Regmi 1995). A
deep approach, in contrast. involves an intention to
understand and gives meaning by focusing on relations
between parts of the subject matter or the structure of
the problem as a whole (Ramsden, Martin & Bowden
1989) . In this instance, students are intrinsically
interested in what they are learning. They attempt to
understand and relate their learning task both to their
previous knowledge and to their personal experiences
(Watkins & Regmi 1995). A strategic approach on the
other hand, 'involves an intention to obtain the highest
possible grades and may co-exist with either deep or
surface approaches, or a combination of them, which-
ever strategy seems most likely to fit the assessment
criteria' (Entwistle & Entwistle 1992:1).
Ultimately, an examination of student learning ap-
proaches in mathematics serves to inform and guide
Reproduced by Sabinet Gateway under licence granted by the Publisher (dated 2009).
lecturers about strategies that might be more advan-
tageously used in teaching the subject (Mji 1995). It
is therefore important to understand student learning
because 'many students leave the university with
"passive knowledge", ie knowledge of facts and
theories that can be recalled on demand ... instead
of active knowledge that epitomizes the aims of
university teaching' (Jacobs & Gravett 1998; Gravett
1993). Active knowledge being that characterised by
a deep understanding of inter-related key concepts
and principles that underlie facts and procedures and
the ability to appraise knowledge critically (Jacobs &
Gravett 1998) . The purpose of this study was to
examine undergraduate mathematics students' ap-
proaches to learning the subject.
SAMPLE
Participants were from two universities in the Eastern
Cape. A total of 94 first-year students taking courses
in mathematics with an intention of majoring in the
subject responded to the administered questionnaire.
These were students who willingly responded to the
administered instrument. Of the total. 43 were males
whose ages ranged from 18 to 25 years with a mean
age of 19,9 (SO = 2,2). The rest were 51 females
whose ages ranged from 16 to 29 years with a mean
age of 20,0 (SO = 2,6).
156
PROCEDURE
Two questionnaires were administered to students in
September 1997. It was clearly explained to partici-
pants that the questionnaires were intended to
determine their dispositions to learning mathematics.
All questions and queries relating to the instruments
were addressed to the satisfaction of all the partici-
pants. They were then asked to respond to two sets of
statements extracted from a more comprehensive
'Assist questionnaire' (Entwistle 1996). The first
questionnaire, a nine-item scale: 'What is learning',
intended to assess what learning means to first-year
students of mathematics. Responses to item state-
ments were required on a five point Likert type format.
ranging from 5 = Very Close to 1 = Very Different.
The second questionnaire: 'Preferences for different
types of course and teaching', contains eight items.
This scale was designed to determine students'
preferences of different methods of teaching, also in
a five point Likert type format ranging from 5 =
Definitely like to 1 = Definitely dislike.
RESULTS
A fundamental requirement of a research instrument is
that it should be reliable in the sense that it yields
consistent results when used repeatedly under the
same conditions and is not vulnerable to errors of
measurement (Richardson 1990). In this investiga-
tion rei iabil ity was assessed by determining the
internal consistency coefficient using Cronbac's alpha
(1951) which has been described as 'the preferred
coefficient' (Kline 1993:10) . The coefficients were
found to be 0,7 for the first questionnaire and 0,6 for
the second. While these alpha values are low, insights
gained from this preliminary investigation are worth
reporting. One possible explanation for the low
coefficient values is the fact that item statements
were taken directly from the 'Assist questionnaire' and
may have needed some modification before being
utilised in a different environment. This modification
has already been undertaken for a larger study.
Since the scales were extracted from the Assist
questionnaire and these had been used at the Centre
for Research on Learning and Instruction, University
of Edinburgh by Entwistle (1996), content validity of
the two questionnaires was accepted a priori for this
study. Confirmatory factor analysis could have been
used for the validation process, but this was not
possible because of the sample size. This was mainly
because Nunnally (1978), for example, has argued
that a 20:1 ratio of subjects to variables is required to
avoid chance effects. In this study the ratio was 6:1 ,
which was not acceptable for such an analysis.
 SAJHE/SATHO VOL 13 NO 31999

'What is learning' questionnaire Figure 3

This instrument was constructed in such a way that Distribution of responses to item (iii)
four items reflected surface approaches and five deep
approaches to learning. Figures 1-4 show the
100,----------------------------------__,
eo ~-----
percentage distribution of subjects on the four items
representing surface approaches. The numbers stand
for, [5] = Very Close; [4] = Quite Close; [3] = Not
so Close; [2] = Rather Different: [1] = Very
Different. Subjects had to indicate their choices to
the following items:

Figure 1
..
~I ----------------

10
-

Distribution of responses to item (i)

lOO.---------~------------------------__,

Std. Dev = 0,95

eo - -. - - - - - - - Masn =4 ,3
80 1--- - - - - -

~ Figure 4
; :1------ -
00

Distribution of responses to item (iv)

.. 1----------------------- 100,-------------------------------_
.. 1--------- - --
10 1--- - - - 80 - -

70

~
Std. Dev =1,07 .
1: 00
1
-. _ - - - - - - 1
Reproduced by Sabinet Gateway under licence granted by the Publisher (dated 2009).

Masn =3,8

20 . - - -- - - - --
Figure 2
10

Distribution of responses to item (ii)

lOOr-------------------------------------,
Std. Dev ~ 1,39
eo 1------------------------------------- 1 Mean =3,0

~
It is noticeable from the above figures that a majority

1:1------ -
60
of responses were made in the [4] and [5] categories,
indicating that item statements were regarded as
either quite close or very close to what learning meant
20 to subjects. However, figure 4 shows that on this item
10 respondents had mixed opinions. In fact 37,2%
oL---------~. .- - indicated [1] and [2]. 24,5% chose [3] while 38,3%
o
selected [4] and [5].
SId. Dev = 0,55
Mean =4,6 Total scores were then determined for the statements
representing surface approaches. Since there were
four items, the lowest possible score was four and the
(i) Making sure you remember things well highest 20. The scores were divided into three non
overlapping segments. The first. made up of scores
(ii) Building up knowledge by acquiring facts and
less than or equal to nine represented subjects who
information felt statements were different. The second, in the
(iii) Being able to use the information you've range greater than or equal to 10 and less than or
acquired equal to 15, had subjects who felt statements were
(iv) Getting on with things you've got to do. not so close. The third , with scores of16 or more,

157
 ISSN 1011 - 3487

represented subjects who indicated that statements Figure 7

were close to their way of thinking about learning. Distribution of responses to item (b)

Figure 5 .00,------------------------------,

Frequency distribution of total scores

..
00
~-----------------------------~

70 1-- - - - - - -
~~--~======~--~============--------~
..,..
,"17 ~
-~::--====
13
3O j -- - - - - -- -- - -
r~ 1- - - - -- - - - - - - -
20 1-- - - -- -- - -

t:=iIiiiiiiiiiii
Std. Dey = 1,13
1
I. 11 .. ..
roTAl
13 ,. " 17
"
,. ,. Mean 3,6 =

Figure 8

Differenl
II Notse close
II
Close
Distribution of responses to item (c)

100 ,-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,
00 1-- - - - - - -
Figure 5 shows the frequency distribution of respon- 00

dents, and the scores obtained in each segment. A 701- - - - - - - - - - - -

majority of 53 (56.4%) respondents pointed out that
item statements representing surface approaches
Reproduced by Sabinet Gateway under licence granted by the Publisher (dated 2009).

were close to their way of thinking about learning.

There were 41 (43,6%) who reported that statements 30 I ---- - - - -
were not so close and no one indicated that 20

statements were different. 101-- - - - - - - - - ' - - - - -

A similar analysis was carried out for statements

representing deep approaches to learning. The per- Sid. Dey = 1,03
centage distribution of respondents on the five items Mean=4,1

representing this approach is shown in figures 6-10 .

Figure 9
Figure 6
Distribution of responses to item (d)
Distribution of responses to item (a)
100.-- ------------------------- - - - - - - ,
.00,-----------------------------, 00
00
eo
1101- - - - - -
70 j -- - - - - - - - -
7'
~ 60
!z 60 1- - - - - - - -
i 40

301------------------------
20 20

10
" ~~iiiii

std. Dey = 1,11 Std. Dey = 1,25

Mean = 4,1 Mean = 3,7

158
 SAJHE/SATHO VOL 13 NO 3 1999

Figure 10 Figure 11
Distribution of responses to item (e) Frequency distribution of total scores

l00r-------------------------------------,
.
20

oa "11
,.I.
80

10

.,
13

~.
" ..
~ r_-----------------

2O f -- - - - - -
10 f- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -
~ 5t====-c:::::j.
8 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 '04 16 18 17 18 18 20 21 22 23 204 2ei
TOTAL

Std. Dev = 1,03

Mean 4,1 = f---O-jff-e-re- n-t --II 1--1--N-ot-so--close
------jl 1-1----C-Io-se------I

Subjects responded to the following items:

(a) Developing as a person
(b) Using all your experience in life
(c) Understanding new material for yourself
(d) Seeing things in a diHerent and more meaningful
way
(e) Being able to relate to people better.
As in surface approaches, choices on the items were
Reproduced by Sabinet Gateway under licence granted by the Publisher (dated 2009).
An observation of the reported perceptions of
approaches to learning , reveals that 53 (56.4%)
students ind ica ted following surface approaches and
52 (55 ,3%), deep approaches. An analysis of mean
differences between the two approaches, using a t-
test, showed no significant difference (t = 1,227, df
= 93) . It should be pointed out that for both
approaches a group of 41 (43,6%) respondents
consistently indicated that statements were not so

made from [5] = Very Close; [4] = Quite Close; [3]

= Not so Close; [2] = Rather Different; [1] = Very
Different.
It is apparent from figures 6-10 that a majority of
responses were for the categories [4] and [5]. This
indicates that respondents perceived item statements
representing deep approaches to be either close or
very close to what learning meant to them .
As with surface approaches , total scores were
calculated for the statements representing deep
approaches . In this instance there were five items,
so the lowest possible score was five and the highest
25 . Scores were divided into three non -overlapping
segments as before. The first. in the range less than or
equal to 11, defined those subjects who felt state-
ments were different. The second, with scores greater
than or equal to 12 and less than or equal to 18,
defined subjects who felt statements were nor so
close. The third , comprising of subjects with scores of
greater than or equal to 19, were respondents who
reported that item statements were close to their way
of thinking about learning . Figure 11 shows that a
majority of 52 (55,3%) respondents indicated that
items representing deep approaches were close to
their way of thinking about learning . There were 41
(43,6%) indicating statements were not so close and
only 1 (1 ,1 %) indicated they were different.
close.
Preferences for different types of course and
teaching
This scale was used to determine preferences for
different methods of teaching . Items of this question-
naire deliberately accentuated contrasts between deep
and surface approaches to learning where scores could
be combined to indicate re lative overall preferences
(Entwist le 1996). In this instance, there were eight
items, four representing surface approaches and four
deep approaches. Figures 12-1 5 show the percentage
distribution of subjects on the four items representing
surface approaches. In this case subjects selected one
of, [5] = Definitely like; [4] = Like to some extent;
[3] = Unsure; [2] = Dislike to some extent; [1] =
Definitely dislike. Subjects had to indicate their choices
to the following items:
(i) Lecturers who tell us exactly what to put down
in our notes
(ii) Exams or tests which need only the material
provided in our lecture notes
(iii) Courses in which it's made very clear just which
books we have to read
(iv) Books which give you definite facts and in-
formation which can easily be learned.

159
 ISSN 1011-3487

Figure 12 Figure 15

Distribution of responses to item (i) Distribution of responses to item (iv)

lOO ~------------------------------------,
100,-------------------------------------,
~ ~----------------------------------~ ool------------------------------------~
eo 1- - - - - - - - - 80 .

70 70 - - - - - - - - - - - - _... _-- -
~ eo ~ 80

I: ---~
i :f---------
3O ~------------------------------
~ ~----------------------- ~ ~-----------------------
l0r=::=ii_ lO r----------------------

Std. Dev = 0,98 3td. Dev = 0,86

Mean = 4.0 Mean = 4,5

Figure 13

Distribution of responses to item (ii)
100,------------------------------------,
~f----- ---------------------------- ------I
~ ~--------------------
701 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Reproduced by Sabinet Gateway under licence granted by the Publisher (dated 2009).
Total scores were calculated for the statements
representing surface approaches . Since there were
four items. the lowest possible score was four and the
highest 20. The scores were! divided into three non
overlapping segments. The first. made up of scores
less than or equal to nine represented subjects who
indicated that they disliked what item statements on
preferences for different types of course and teaching
were saying. The second, in the score range greater

30

than or equal to 10 and less than or equal to 15, were

10 subjects who indicated that they were unsure. The
third, representing scores of 16 or more were subjects
who indicated that they liked what statements meant .
Std. Dev =1,20
Mean =3.9 Figure 16 shows that 68 (72.3%) respondents
indicated that they liked statements representing
Figure 14 surface approaches on this instrument. There were
Distribution of responses to item (iii) 24 (25.6%) respondents who indicated they were
100,-------------------------------------,
unsure, and only 2 (2,1%) reported that they did not
w ~----------------------------------~
like item statements.
eo r-----------------------------------~
7O r-----------------------------------~
Figure 16

~ Frequency distribution of total scores

I :1----------
00

,.,.
~

3O r-----------------------.-.-------- -
~ r-----------------------
I.,.,.
17

10 r---------------- 13
'2
~ "
!!i
e
'0
9
~
Std. Dev = 1,01
= 4,3

.~iiii
Mean

It is noticeable from figures 12- 15 that a majority of .. 5 8 7 IS 9 '0

responses were in the [4] and [5] categories. indicat-
ing that item statements representing surface ap-
proaches were perceived to be liked by the subjects. r---~D~18~lIk-e--~1 ~1--~un-8-u~-~1 ~I-~L-ik-e-~

160

A similar analysis was carried out for statements
representing deep approaches to learning. The percen-
tage distribution of respondents on the items repre-
senting these approaches is shown in figures 17-20.
Figure 17
Distribution of responses to item (a)
100,-------------------------------------,
~I------------------------------------~
~I---------------------------------------I
I :1- - - ----- -1
ro ~----------------------------------__4
:!O/_-----------------------
20 /_-----------------------
Std. Dev = 0,85
Mean =4,3
Figure 18
Distribution of responses to item (b)
100,-------------------------------------,
~ r------------------------------------- I
~ r-----------------------------------~
Reproduced by Sabinet Gateway under licence granted by the Publisher (dated 2009).
ro ~--------------
I:t----------I
:!O f-------------- ----------- -
20 1- - - - - - - - -_______
10 f-------------------
Std . Oev 0,87
Mean =3,9
Figure 19
Distribution of responses to item (c)
.~,-------------------------------------,
~ /-----------------------------------~
~ /_----------------------------------__1
ro r-------------------------------------I
~ 00
~
~ .. /---------------------------------
... I - -- --
:!O /----------------------
-j
20 /----------------
10
Std. Dev = 1,21
Mean =3,3
SAJHE/ SATHO VOL 13 NO 3 1999
Figure 20
Distribution of responses to item (d)
100 .-------------------------------------,
00 I-------------------------------------i
~ ~----------------------
ro ~------------------------------------i
~ eo
~: f-----I
:101 ------
201------------------------
'0 / _ - - - - - - - -
Std. Dev = 1.18
Mean = 3,9
Subjects responded to the following items:
(a) Lecturers who encourage us to think for our-
selves and show us how they themselves think
(b) Exams which allow me to show that I've thought
about the course material for myself
(c) Courses where we' re encouraged to read around
the subject a lot for ourselves
(d) Books which challenge you and provide expla-
nations which go beyond the lectures
As in surface approaches. choices on the items were
made from [5J = Definitely like; [4J = Like to some
extent; [3J = Unsure; [2J = Dislike to some extent;
[1 J = Definitely dislike.
It is evident from figures 17-20 that a majority of
responses were for the categories [4 J and [5]. Th is
indicates that respondents felt that they liked item
statements representing deep approaches.
Likewise with surface approaches, total scores were
calculated for the statements representing deep ap-
proaches. Again here. there were four items, so the
lowest possible score was four and the highest 20.
Scores were then divided into three non-overlapping
segments. The first. defined the range of scores less than
or equal to nine, consisting of subjects who indicated
that they disliked what statements were saying about
different types of course and teaching. The second, with
scores greater than or equal to 10 and less than or equal
to 15, defined subjects who were unsure. The third ,
with scores of greater than or equal to 16, comprised of
subjects who reported that they liked item statements.
Figure 21 shows that 51 (54,3%) respondents indicated
that they liked the items representing deep approaches
to learning. There were 41 (43.6%) who indicated that
they were unsure and only 2 (2.1 %) reported that they
disliked the statements.
161
 ISSN 1011-3487

Figure 21 that students should follow deep approaches to

learning because this means they learn to understand
Distribution of responses to item (d)
and apply their knowledge . However. that the
,.I.
'"
students have also indicated a dependence on surface
approaches suggests that they rely on memorisation
,." and reproduction in certain situations . This is not
,.la
15
necessarily bad. as memorisation in certain areas in
mathematics is unavoidable. I nstead. the total reliance
~
ffi
e:>
",." on surface approaches should be discouraged. This is
0
If

6
usually as a result of cues students receive from the
teaching - learning context or assessment for example.
Those assessment practices that require recall or
rehearsal of trivial detail remove the ability of students
,1--- -- -
0 '------ - - -
to critically analyse. Instead. they foster an astuteness
.. 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 18 17 18 '9 20
to working out what could be tested and how
TOTAL
(Garfield 1995).
r----D~ls-li~ke--~1 rl----u-nS-U-M--~ Like
A s part of a larger study. this investigation has
highlighted that students perceive themselves as
For this particular instrument. an observation of the following both surface and deep approaches to
reported perceptions of approaches to learning. learning. Possibly. the students were describing a
reveals that 68 (72.3%) students indicated following strategic approach. which is an intention to get
surface approaches and 51 (54.3%). deep ap- highest possible marks. This approach . is described
proaches . No significant difference. however. was as co-existing with either surface or deep approaches.
found between the means for the two approaches (t or a combination of the two (Entwistle & Entwistle
= 2.090. df = 93). In this instance. there were 24 1992) . There is evidence from elsewhere that this
(25.6%) and 41 (43 .6%) indicating unsure for surface depends on how they perceive the task at hand
and deep approaches respectively. (Jacobs & Gravett 1998; Ramsden et al 1989;
Reproduced by Sabinet Gateway under licence granted by the Publisher (dated 2009).

Ramsden 1992). This is an interesting phenomenon .

DISCUSSION
It is noticeable from the results of this investigation
that the two questionnaires have elicited findings that
are remarkably similar . The questionnaires were
designed to accentuate differences between surface
and deep approaches to learning . The results how -
ever. indicate a leaning to both approaches. The
conclusion was. since a majority perceived them-
selves to be following both approaches. then they
have no particular preference for either. This is an
important result. interpreted as supporting the ex -
istence of a strategic approach to learning defined in
literature (Entwistle & Entwistle 1992). It is preferable
because in Australia a distinction between students
following surface and deep approaches was observed
for example (Crawford. Gordon. Nicholas & Prosser
1994). Also. in South Africa in an earlier study a
majority of students from one university in the Eastern
Cape reported following surface approaches mainly
(Mji 1995) .
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The financial assistance of the Centre for Science Develop-
ment toward s this research is hereby acknowledged.
Opinions expressed in this article and conclusions arrived
at. are those of the author and are not necessarily to be
attributed to the Centre for Science Development.

REFERENCES

ALLAN . J 1996. Learning outcomes in higher education. Studies in Higher Education 21 :93-1 08 .
ATKINS. M 1995. What should we be assessing? in Knight. P (ed) Assessment for learning in higher education.
London : Kogan Page.
BIGGS. J B 1993. What do inventories of students' learning process really measure? A theoretical review and
clarification. British Journal of Educational Psychology 63:3-19.
CRAWFORD. K. Gordon. S. Nicholas. J & Prosser. M 1994. Conceptions of mathematics and how it is learned: the
perspectives of students entering university. Learning and Instruction 4:331-349.

162
 SAJHE/ SATHO VOL 13 NO 3 1999

CRONBACH. L J 1951. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16:297-334.
ENTWISTLE. A & Entwistle. N J 1992 . Experiences of understanding in revising for degree examinations.
Learning and instruction 2:1-22.
ENTWISTLE. N J 1996. Assist: approaches and study skills inventory for students. Centre for Research on
Learning and Instruction. University of Edinburgh.
ENTWISTLE. N J & Ramsden. P 1983. Understanding student learning. London: Croom Helm.
GARFIELD. J B 1995. Modern interdisciplinary university statistics education. The American Statistician 49 :18-
20.
GRAVEn. S 1993. Onderrigontwikkeling op universiteitsvlak: 'n leerbegeleidingsperspektief. OEd-thesis. Rand
Afrikaans University. Johannesburg .
JACOBS. G & Gravett. S 1998. University teachers ' conceptions of their teaching role. South African Journal of
Higher Education 12(1 }:54--60.
KLINE. P 1993. Personality: the psychometric view. London: Routledge .
LAURILLARD . 0 1987. The different forms of learning in psychology and education. in Richardson. J T E.
Eysenck. M W & Piper. 0 W (eds) Student learning: research in education and cognitive psychology.
Milton Keynes. England: Open University press & Society for Research into Higher Education.
MARTIN . E & Ramsden. P 1987. Learning skills. or skill in learning? in Richardson . J T E. Eysenck. M W & Piper.
OW (eds) Student learning: research in education and cognitive psychology. Milton Keynes. England:
Open University press & Society for Research into Higher Education.
MJ I. A 1995. First year university students' conceptions of mathematics and approaches to learning the subject: a
phenomenographic study. M Ed Dissertation. University of Transkei . Umtata .
NUNNALLY. J C 1978. Psychometric theory (2nd edition). New York: McGraw-HilI.
RAMSDEN . P 1985. Student learning research : retrospect and prospect. Higher Education Research and
Development 4:51-69 .
RAMSDEN . P 1992. Learning to teach in higher education . London: Routledge .
RAMSDEN. P & Entwistle. N J 1981. Effects of academic departments on students' approaches to studying .
British Journal of Educational Psychology 51 :368- 383.
RAMSDEN. P. Martin. E & Bowden. J 1989. School environment and sixth form pupils' approaches to learning.
Reproduced by Sabinet Gateway under licence granted by the Publisher (dated 2009).

British Journal of Educational Psychology 59:129-142.

RICHARDSON . J T E 1990. Reliability and replicability of the approaches to studying questionnaire. Studies in
Higher Education 15(2}:155-168.
WATKINS . 0 & Regmi. M 1995. Assessing approaches to learning in non-western cultures: a Nepalese
conceptual validity study. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 20(2} :203-212 .

163