Cited by 12Educational Strategies and EpistemologiesEvaluation of Teaching PracticesInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods

Upper secondary school students’ conceptions of learning, learning strategies, and academic achievement

Open access
Vettori, Giulia, Vezzani, Claudio, Bigozzi, Lucia, Pinto, Giuliana·2020·The Journal of Educational Research

Abstract

The relations between more surface- or deep-level learning approaches and academic achievement were investigated. Gender, level of study, and type of schools were moderating variables. 170 upper-secondary school students’ conceptions of learning and their chosen learning strategies were explored via two self-report questionnaires. Furthermore, their academic achievement in a range of subject areas was collected. A Confirmatory Factorial Analysis of the two questionnaires’ dimensions identified two factors showing learning approaches of different qualitative nature, more surface- or deep-level. Then, General Linear Models showed that the predictive impact of the tracked factors was differently related to students’ academic achievement. The factor “Deep metacognitive theory of learning” positively predicted academic achievement, whereas the factor “Surface metacognitive theory of learning” was a negative predictor.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/00220671.2020.1861583

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Purdie, N., & Hattie, J. (2002). Assessing students' conceptions of learning. Australian Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, 2, 17-32.

Cited by

Authors
Vettori, G., Vezzani, C., Bigozzi, L., & Pinto, G.
Affiliations
University of Florence (IT)
Corresponding author
Vettori, Giulia
Venue
The Journal of Educational Research
Published
2020-10-01
Volume
113
Issue
6
Pages
475-485
ISSN
  • 0022-0671 (ISSN-L)
  • 1940-0675
OpenAlex
W3116341383
Cited by
12
References
52
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2020: 1
FWCI
2.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • The Journal of Educational Research (publishedVersion)
  • Florence Research (University of Florence) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
  • Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Keywords
conceptions of learning, surface learning, deep learning, learning strategies, academic performance, high school students, gender differences, educational tracking, moderators

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review