CONNECTION OF LEARNING APPROACHES AND TARGET ORIENTATIONS IN LEARNING IN STUDENTS OF FINAL GRADES OF PRIMARY SCHOOL

Ranka Perućica; Olivera Kalajdžić; Vesna Cvjetinović; Andrijana Bakoč; Ivana Zečević

doi:10.7251/NSK1914007P

Authors

Ranka Perućica Универзитет у Источном Сарајеву Медицински факултет Фоча Филозофски факултет Пале
Olivera Kalajdžić Универзитет у Источном Сарајеву Медицински факултет Фоча Филозофски факултет Пале
Vesna Cvjetinović Универзитет у Источном Сарајеву Медицински факултет Фоча Филозофски факултет Пале
Andrijana Bakoč Универзитет у Источном Сарајеву Медицински факултет Фоча Филозофски факултет Пале
Ivana Zečević Универзитет у Источном Сарајеву Медицински факултет Фоча Филозофски факултет Пале

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.7251/NSK1914007P

Keywords:

deep approach, surface approach, dominant target orientation, performative avoidable target orientation and performative confirmatory target orientation

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to examine whether there is a connection between learning approaches and target orientations in learning among primary school students. Our main hypothesis is that there is a connection between learning approaches and target orientations in learning in primary school students. The sample of the research consisted of students from the seventh, eighth and ninth grades from the area of Sarajevo - Romanija region. On the basis of the obtained research results, we have obtained a connection between student learning approaches and targeted learning orientations. Students who use a deeper approach to learning in their learning experience show a high positive correlation with the dominant target orientation. The correlation of the deep learning approach with the perfomative avoidable target orientation is negative, and with the performative confirmatory is low and negative. Students with a superficial learning approach show a high positive correlation with the implementation-avoiding target orientation. The correlation between the surface approach and the performative avoidable target orientation and the dominant target orientations is very low and almost nonexistent. In correlation with the performative confirmative it is positive and with the dominant orientation it is negative. From the obtained results we can conclude that the deeper approach to learning follows the dominant target orientation and that in such situations it is about students who want to master the content in the right way to expand their knowledge.

References

Bigs 1987: J. B Biggs, Study Process Questionnaire Manual, Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.

Bigs 1994: J. Biggs, Student Learning Research and Theory – where do we currently stand? In Gibbs, G. (ed.) Improving Student Learning - Theory and Practice, Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff Development.

Bigs еt al. 2001: J.B. Biggs, D. Kember, D. Leung, The Revised two – factor study process questionnaire: R – SPQ –2F, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71 (1), 133–149.

Визек-Видовић и др. 2003: V. Vizek-Vidović, M. Rijavec, V. Vlahović-Štetić, D. Miljković, Psihologija obrazovanja, Zagreb: IEP – Vern.

Grin, Miler 1996: B. A. Green, R.B. Miller, Influences on Achievement: Goals, Percived Ability, and Cognitive Engagement, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 181–192.

Deker еt аl. 2013: S. Dekker, L. Karabbendam, N.C. Lee, A. Boschboo, R. Groot, J. Jolles, Sex differences in goal orientation in adolescents ager 10-19: The older boys adapt work-avoidant goals twice as often as girls, Learning and Individual Differences, 26, 196–200.

Diner, Dvek 1978: C. Diener, C.S. Dweck, An analysis of learned help/essness: continuous changes in performance, strategy and achievement cognitions following failure, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1024– 1037.

Dvek 1986: C.S. Dweck, Motivational Processes Affecting Learning, American Psychologist, 41(10),1040–1048.

Dvek, Leget 1988: C.S. Dweck, E.L. Leggett, A Social – Cognitive Approach to Motivation and Personality, Psychological Review, 95 (2), 256–273.

Ejms 1984: C. Ames, Achievement attributions and self – instructions under competitive and individualistic goal structures, Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 478–487.

Ejms 1992: C. Ames, Clasrooms: Goals, structures and student motivation. Journal Educationa Psychology, 84, 261–271.

Eliot et al. 1999: A. J. Elliot, H.A. McGregor, S. Gable, Achievement Goals Study Strategies and ExamPerformance: A Mediational Analysis, Journal of Educational psychology, 91 (3), 549–563.

Entvistl 1987: N. J. Entwistle, A model of the teaching learning process in Richardson, J.T.E., Eysenck, M.W., Warren Piper, D. (Eds) Students learning: Research in Education and cognitive psychology, London Open University press, 13–28.

Јакшић 2008: M. Jakšić, Ciljevi postignuća. Percepcija kompetentnosti, spol i strategija učenja u opštem akademskom kontekstu. Filozofski fakultet, Sveučilišta u Zagrebu.

Jurčec 2011: L. Jurčec, Pristupi učenju, ciljne orijentacije i uspjeh studenata, u: Kolesarić, V.(Ur.), Vrijeme sličnosti i razlika – izazov psihologije i psiholozima, Knjiga sažetaka, Osijek: Društvo psihologa.

Кaplan, Maer 2007: A. Кaplan, M.L. Maehr, (The contributions and Prospects of Goal Orientation Theory.Educational Psychology Review 19.141–184.

Marton 1983: F. Marton, Beyond Individual Differences, Educational Psychology, 3 (3 i 4), 289–303.

Marton, Saljo 1976: F. Marton, R. Saljo, On qualitative differences in learning, I – outcome and process, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46. 4–11.

Мирков 2013: С. Мирков, Компоненте у моделима учења: начини операционализације и међусобни односи, Зборник института за педагошка истраживања, 45 (1), 62–85.

Nolen, Haladina 1990: S.B. Nolen, T.M. Haladyna, Motivation and studying in high school science, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27 (2), 115– 126.

Павловић 2010: З. Павловић, Мотивационе оријентације и школско учење, Источно Сарајево: Филозофски факултет.

Ramsden 1988: P. Ramsden, Context and strategy: Situational infuences on learning, u: R.R. Schmech (Ur.), Learning Strategies and Learning Styles, 159–184, Illinois: University Carbondale.

Remedios, Ričardson 2013: R. Remedios, J.T.E. Richardson, Achievement goals and approaches to studying:evidence from adult learners in distance education, Distance Education, 34 (3), 271–289.

Рончевић-Зубковић, Koлић-Веховац 2014: B. Rončević-Zubković, S. Kolić- Vehovac, Perceptions of contextual achievement goals: contribution to high – school students achievement goal orientation, strategy use and academic achievement, Studia Psychologica, 56, (2), 137–153.

Ričardson 1994a: J. Richardson, Using Questionnaires to Evaluate Student Learning: Some HealthWarnings, In G. Gibbs (Ed.), Improving Student Learning – Theory and Practice, Oxford Centre for Staff Development.

Рупчић, Колић-Веховац 2004: И. Рупчић, С. Колић-Веховац, Циљна оријентација, самохендикепирање и самоефикасност средњошколаца, Психологијске теме, 1, 105–117.

Felder, Silverman 1988: R. M. Felder, L. K. Silverman, Learning and teaching styles in engineering education, Engineering education, 78(7), 674–681.