The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Approaches to learning, need for cognition, and strategic flexibility among university students.
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.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“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).”
From Retrieval Practice Is Effective Regardless of Self-Reported Need for Cognition - Behavioral and Brain Imaging Evidence (2022) · cites this paper as Evans et al., 2003
In the citing paper
“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).”
From Retrieval Practice Is Effective Regardless of Self-Reported Need for Cognition - Behavioral and Brain Imaging Evidence (2022) · cites this paper as Evans et al., 2003
Citations
Cites
Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992) · Sociological Methods & Research · doi:10.1177/0049124192021002005 · Cited by 27,200
Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1998) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.3.4.424 · Cited by 12,298
Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry
Flavell, J. H. (1979) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.34.10.906 · Cited by 11,282
Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling.
MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.1.2.130 · Cited by 10,418
Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research.
Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.4.3.272 · Cited by 9,587
Motivational processes affecting learning.
Dweck, C. S. (1986) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.41.10.1040 · Cited by 6,971
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.116 · Cited by 5,359
ON QUALITATIVE DIFFERENCES IN LEARNING: I—OUTCOME AND PROCESS*
Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976) · British Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1976.tb02980.x · Cited by 4,748
The Efficient Assessment of Need for Cognition
Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Feng Kao, C. (1984) · Journal of Personality Assessment · doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4803_13 · Cited by 2,913
Educational measurement, 3rd ed.
Linn, R. L. (1989) · Cited by 2,858
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Need for Cognition as an Antecedent of Individual Innovation Behavior
Wu, C., Parker, S. K., & de Jong, J. P. J. (2011) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206311429862 · Cited by 384
Wilson, K. L., & Fowler, J. (2004) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/0260293042003251770 · Cited by 214
“The outcomes of this study are consistent with recent factor analytic research (Evans et al., 2003) which suggests that a deep approach and adaptive control of learning, while distinct ideas, appear to be related to a common higher-order construct.”
ResultDevelopment of a scale to measure lifelong learning
Kirby, J. R., Knapper, C. K., Lamon, P., & Egnatoff, W. J. (2010) · International Journal of Lifelong Education · doi:10.1080/02601371003700584 · Cited by 197
“Evans and colleagues ( 2003 ) showed that the deep approach to learning was related to the personality dimension of need for cognition (Cacioppo et al.”
BackgroundMainly Openness: The relationship between the Big Five personality traits and learning approaches
Chamorro‐Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. F. (2009) · Learning and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2009.06.004 · Cited by 178
Learning Strategies and Study Approaches of Postsecondary Students With Dyslexia
Kirby, J. R., Silvestri, R., Allingham, B. H., Parrila, R., & Fave, C. B. L. (2008) · Journal of Learning Disabilities · doi:10.1177/0022219407311040 · Cited by 175
“These processes are consistent with their deeper approach to learning (Evans et al., 2003; Hadwin, Kirby, & Woodhouse, 1999; Kirby & Pedwell, 1991), but students with dyslexia may require considerably more instruction and strategy training to be able to execute them.”
Background
Metadata
- 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
