Sixty-four (76%) responses were received. Details of exclusion at various stages of data analysis are shown in Figure: 3.
The distribution of the predominant learning approaches among the 60 students is shown in Figure: 4A.
The two highest scored items in ASSIST were, (A) Question 6 (Table: 1), for Deep-learning approach (score, s=4.43) and (B) Question 5 (Table: 1), for Strategic-learning approach (s=4.4). Question 10 (Table: 2), concerning Surface-learning approach, scored lowest (s = 2.3).
The results for preferred teaching approaches are shown in Figure: 4B. Five students were excluded from the analysis, as they ranked equally for both Deep-teaching and Surface-teaching approaches. Of the 55 students, majority preferred Surface-teaching Approach Figure: 4B.
Next, we correlated the students’ preferred teaching approaches with learning approaches (Figure: 4C). Here, Question 38 in ASSIST (Table: 1) concerning the surface-teaching approach, assessing information delivery/dissemination, had the highest score (s = 4.5). On the other hand, Question 39 in ASSIST (Table: 1) pertaining to the deep-learning approach, appraising learner understanding, had the lowest score (s = 2.9).
Paired t – tests
Paired t-tests were conducted to identify any significant differences between the average scores of each learning approach. Statistically significant difference was observed between deep-learning (Mean (M)= 4.02, Standard Deviation (SD) = 0.554) and surface-learning (M= 3.52, SD=0.638) approaches (t (60) =4.30, p<0.001). Significant difference between the deep-learning and strategic-learning (M=3.46, SD = 0.676) approaches (t (60) = 6.11, p<0.001) was also witnessed. No statistically significant difference between strategic-learning and surface-learning approaches (t (60) = -0.37, p=0.71) was found.
A Spearman correlation was conducted to determine if students’ preferred teaching-approaches match their learning-approach (Table: 3). Sixty students were included in this analysis. Deep-learners (R= 0.46, p<0.001) and Surface-learners (R=0.49, p<0.001), were found to prefer their respective teaching approaches.
Strategic-learning scores failed to exhibit correlation with Deep-teaching scores (R=0.22, p=0.09) or Surface-teaching scores (R=0.06, p=0.67). A positive correlation between Deep-learners and Strategic-learners (R=0.36, p=0.005) was found, whereas a negative correlation between Deep-learners and Surface-learners (R= -0.30, p=0.021) was observed.
Next, the association between learning approach and academic performance was also studied (Table: 4). Only Strategic-learners had a significant positive correlation with perceived academic performance (R=0.54, p<0.001).
Ordered Logistic Regression
Ordered logistic regression was used to study the effect of predominant learning approach on self-perception of academic performance (Table: 5). In this analysis, the dependent variable academic performance had multiple levels (1-9). Results suggest that Surface-learners are more likely to score themselves 1.69 points less than Deep-learners on their self-perceptions of academic performance (Estimate: -1.69; 95% CI: -2.88, -0.51; p=0.005). However, Strategic-learners were no different than deep-learners when scoring their self-perceptions of academic performance (Estimate: 0.74; 95% CI: -0.64, 2.12; p=0.30). Details of the regression are presented in Table: 5.