CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 125Evaluation of Teaching PracticesEducation, Achievement, and GiftednessEducational Outcomes and Influences

Evoked prior learning experience and approach to learning as predictors of academic achievement

Trigwell, Keith, Ashwin, Paul, Millan, Elena S.·2013·British Journal of Educational Psychology
DOI 10.1111/j.2044-8279.2012.02066.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background. In separate studies and research from different perspectives, five factors are found to be among those related to higher quality outcomes of student learning (academic achievement). Those factors are higher self‐efficacy, deeper approaches to learning, higher quality teaching, students’ perceptions that their workload is appropriate, and greater learning motivation. University learning improvement strategies have been built on these research results. Aim. To investigate how students’ evoked prior experience, perceptions of their learning environment, and their approaches to learning collectively contribute to academic achievement. This is the first study to investigate motivation and self‐efficacy in the same educational context as conceptions of learning, approaches to learning and perceptions of the learning environment. Sample. Undergraduate students (773) from the full range of disciplines were part of a group of over 2,300 students who volunteered to complete a survey of their learning experience. On completing their degrees 6 and 18 months later, their academic achievement was matched with their learning experience survey data. Method. A 77‐item questionnaire was used to gather students’ self‐report of their evoked prior experience (self‐efficacy, learning motivation, and conceptions of learning), perceptions of learning context (teaching quality and appropriate workload), and approaches to learning (deep and surface). Academic achievement was measured using the English honours degree classification system. Analyses were conducted using correlational and multi‐variable (structural equation modelling) methods. Results. The results from the correlation methods confirmed those found in numerous earlier studies. The results from the multi‐variable analyses indicated that surface approach to learning was the strongest predictor of academic achievement, with self‐efficacy and motivation also found to be directly related. In contrast to the correlation results, a deep approach to learning was not related to academic achievement, and teaching quality and conceptions of learning were only indirectly related to achievement. Conclusions. Research aimed at understanding how students experience their learning environment and how that experience relates to the quality of their learning needs to be conducted using a wider range of variables and more sophisticated analytical methods. In this study of one context, some of the relations found in earlier bivariate studies, and on which learning intervention strategies have been built, are not confirmed when more holistic teaching–learning contexts are analysed using multi‐variable methods.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.2044-8279.2012.02066.x

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • When effort is measured as quality of learning, there is some evidence for a positive link between academic achievement and effort.

    “When effort is measured as quality of learning (e.g., selecting adaptive goals, adopting higher-quality learning strategies, etc.), there is some evidence for a positive link between academic achievement and effort (Trigwell et al., 2013).”

    From Motivation-Achievement Cycles in Learning: a Literature Review and Research Agenda (2022) · cites this paper as Trigwell et al., 2013

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Trigwell, K., Ashwin, P., & Millan, E. S.
Affiliations
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • Lancaster University (GB)
  • University of Reading (GB)
Corresponding author
Trigwell, Keith
ORCID
Venue
British Journal of Educational Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-03-15
Volume
83
Issue
3
Pages
363-378
ISSN
  • 0007-0998 (ISSN-L)
  • 2044-8279
DOI
10.1111/j.2044-8279.2012.02066.x
OpenAlex
W2128519325
Cited by
125
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 1
FWCI
30.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • British Journal of Educational Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • CentAUR (University of Reading) (acceptedVersion)
  • Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Outcomes and Influences
Keywords
academic performance, learning methods, deep and surface learning, self-efficacy, student motivation, conceptions of learning, teaching quality, workload, undergraduate students, learning experience
MeSH terms
Achievement, Female, United Kingdom, Humans, Learning, Male, Motivation, Surveys and Questionnaires, Students, Universities, Self Efficacy

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