Cited by 175Evaluation of Teaching PracticesEducational Strategies and EpistemologiesInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods

Approaches to learning, need for cognition, and strategic flexibility among university students.

Evans, Christina J., Kirby, John R., Fabrigar, Leandre R.·2003·British Journal of Educational Psychology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Considerable research has described students' deep and surface approaches to learning. Other research has described individuals' self-regulated learning and need for cognition. There is a need for research examining the relationships among these constructs. AIMS: This study explored relationships among approaches to learning (deep, surface), need for cognition, and three types of control of learning (adaptive, inflexible, irresolute). Theory suggested similarities among the deep approach, need for cognition, and adaptive control (aspects of self-regulated learning); and among surface, inflexible, and irresolute control (aspects of an ineffective approach to learning). One-factor and two-factor models were proposed. SAMPLE: Participants were 226 Canadian military college students. METHOD: Participants completed the following questionnaires: the Study Process Questionnaire (Biggs, 1978), the Need for Cognition Scale (Cacioppo & Petty, 1982), and the Strategic Flexibility Questionnaire (Cantwell & Moore, 1996). RESULTS: Confirmatory factor analysis supported the identification of the six scale factors. Second order confirmatory factor analysis indicated three factors representing constructs underlying these factors. CONCLUSIONS: Neither the one- nor two-factor models accounted adequately for the data. Self-regulated learning was defined by measures of the deep approach to learning, need for cognition, and adaptive control of learning. The second factor divided into one factor consisting of irresolute control, the surface approach, and negative need for cognition; and another consisting of inflexible and negative adaptive control. Substantial relationships among scales support the need for further theory development.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1348/000709903322591217

Cites

28 of 28 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?

  • Prior behavioral studies have reported that students with lower NFC tend to prefer surface rather than deep learning strategies, or lack engagement in cognitively demanding learning activities.

    “Related to NFC, prior behavioral studies have reported that students with lower NFC have a tendency to prefer learning strategies characterized by surface rather than deep learning (e.g., Evans et al., 2003; Sandra and Otto, 2018), or lack engagement in cognitively demanding learning activities (e.g., Gärtner et al., 2021).”
  • Individuals with lower levels of working memory capacity and NFC are more inclined to use less effective learning strategies given the task at hand.

    “Moreover, Gonthier and Roulin (2020) further provide evidence that individuals with lower levels of working memory capacity and NFC are more inclined to use less effective learning strategies given the task at hand (see also Evans et al., 2003 for related findings).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Evans, C. J., Kirby, J. R., & Fabrigar, L. R.
Affiliations
Queen's University (CA)
Corresponding author
Kirby, John R.
Venue
British Journal of Educational Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2003-12
Volume
73
Issue
4
Pages
507-528
ISSN
  • 0007-0998 (ISSN-L)
  • 2044-8279
OpenAlex
W2042471163
Cited by
174
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 5
FWCI
17.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • British Journal of Educational Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Library and Archives Canada (Government of Canada) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Keywords
learning methods, deep learning, surface learning, need for cognition, strategic flexibility, student self-regulation, adaptive control, university students, military cadets, Study Process Questionnaire, Need for Cognition Scale, factor structure
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Cognition, Female, Humans, Learning, Male, Middle Aged, Surveys and Questionnaires, Students, Universities

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