Search

Learning approaches describe the students' degree of cognitive commitment to learning in diverse types of academic tasks and educational environments. Even though from a micro-level perspective different profiles of approaches have been identified in high-achievement undergraduates attending several majors, such profiles have not been examined from a macro-level approach in terms of distinct educational cultures. Therefore, the research involved two studies conducted on undergraduates from Argentina and Spain: The first one was aimed at analyzing the psychometric features of the Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students (ASSIST) whereas the second was focused on examining the learning approaches profiles of high and low achievers attending the same major (Psychology) in two different educational cultures (Spain and Argentina). The scale's original internal structure, examined on a sample of 400 participants (50% Spanish), was verified except for one item, which was fatherly eliminated. The resulting structure was tested and proven verified in a new sample (N = 1,334; 58.3% Spanish) by confirmatory factor analysis, factorial invariance, and internal consistency studies. External validity evidence was examined as well. Additionally, norms to be used in the professional field were calculated. Profiles of learning approaches by academic achievement from each country were examined by latent class analysis. In both cases, high achievers reported higher and more frequent use of the Deep and Strategic approaches and lower and less frequent usage of the Surface one. Further studies should replicate these analyses in undergraduates attending other majors in order to test the hypothesis sustaining these findings' generalization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Academic engagement refers to the predisposition that students must actively participate in university life, attending classes, turning in work on time, and following teachers' instructions. There is evidence that shows that academic engagement positively predicts student success. For this reason, its evaluation is of great relevance for university education when designing pedagogical practices that stimulate student engagement. The aim of this study was to adapt and validate the University Student Engagement Inventory (USEI) into Spanish, considering linguistic and cultural differences in three Spanish-speaking countries. Methods: 921 university students from Spain, Argentina and Uruguay participated in the study. The USEI, which consists of 15 statements grouped into three dimensions of engagement -behavioral, cognitive, emotional-was administered. Results: After three translators made the linguistic adaptation of the instrument, nine expert judges analyzed the content of the items, retaining as a result the totality of the items. Subsequently, the internal structure of the instrument was analyzed and verified -confirmatory factor analysis, cross-validation, factorial invariance, internal consistency-. Adequate evidence of concurrent external validity between USEI dimensions and learning approaches was also obtained. Conclusion: A Spanish version of the USEI was obtained with adequate psychometric properties that can be used in the field of application with the purpose of identifying students' academic engagement and proposing actions aimed at improving their learnings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The psychometric properties of the Argentinian version of the ASSIST and its factorial invariance for two administration formats (paper-pencil and online), were analyzed. Two samples were employed. In one of them, the participants (n=700) completed the ASSIST in paper and pencil format, and in the other (n=835), they responded online. The model fit for both samples was tested obtaining adequate indices. A factorial invariance analysis then compared the model for the two administration formats, verifying adequate metric invariance. Furthermore, the internal consistency of the instrument dimensions for each sample was analyzed and compared. Results showed good coefficients. Finally, the comparison of dimension scores between the samples did not produce variations. The results and their practical implications are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The study of approaches to learning enables the description of preferences manifested when facing a specific learning task. One of the most widespread instruments for assessing learning approaches is the Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students (ASSIST). In its short version of 18 items, the ASSIST measures three learning approaches (Deep, Surface and Strategic). Given that the availability of this instrument would be of great value and needed to research learning approaches in college students, the objective of this research was to develop an Argentinean version. To meet this end, the inventory underwent an initial linguistic adaptation to the local forms of expression and idioms. Then, construct validity was examined (exploratory and confirmatory factorial analysis, and factorial invariance) together with analyses of concurrent validity. Reliability was examined by means of analyses of internal consistency. The resulting 14-item instrument may be used to describe approaches to learning as proposed by the theory: Deep, Superficial and Strategic. The measure obtained by exploratory and confirmatory procedures showed an adequate factorial invariance. The dimensions of the inventory had internal consistency indexes greater than .80. Finally, evidences of concurrent validity were coherent with the theory and with previous empirical results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this study, results from two different hazard perception tests are presented: the first one is a classic hazard-perception test in which participants must respond – while watching real traffic video scenes – by pressing the space bar in a keyboard when they think there is a collision risk between the camera car and the vehicle ahead. In the second task we use fragments of the same scenes but in this case they are adapted to a signal detection task – a ‘yes’/‘no’ task. Here, participants – most of them, University students – must respond, when the fragment of the video scene ends, whether they think the collision risk had started yet or not. While in the first task we have a latency measure (the time necessary for the driver to respond to a hazard), in the second task we obtain two separate measures of sensitivity and criterion. Sensitivity is the driver’s ability to discriminate in a proper way the presence vs. absence of the signal (hazard) while the criterion is the response bias a driver sets to consider that there is a hazard or not. His/her criterion could be more conservative – the participant demands many cues to respond that the signal is present, neutral or even liberal – the participant will respond that the signal is present with very few cues. The aim of the study is to find out if our latency measure is associated with a different sensitivity and/or criterion. The results of the present study show that drivers who had greater latencies and drivers who had very low latencies yield a very similar sensitivity mean value. Nevertheless, there was a significant difference between these two groups of drivers in criterion: those drivers who had greater latencies in the first task were also more conservative in the second task. That is, the latter responded less frequently that there was danger in the sequences. We interpret that greater latencies in our first hazard perception test could be due to a stricter or more conservative criterion, rather than a low sensitivity to perceptual information for collision risk. Drivers with a more conservative criterion need more evidences of danger, thus taking longer to respond. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]