References
- Asikainen, H., Parpala, A., Virtanen, V., & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (2013). The relationship between student learning process, study success and the nature of assessment: A qualitative study. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 39(4), 211–217. DOI: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2013.10.008
- Ausubel, D. P. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. Oxford, England: Grune & Stratton.
- Balasooriya, C. D., Toohey, S., & Hughes, C. (2009). The cross-over phenomenon: Unexpected patterns of change in students’ approaches to learning. Studies in Higher Education, 34(7), 781–794. DOI: 10.1080/03075070802699188
- Barab, S. A., Evans, M. A., & Baek, E. O. (2004).
Activity theory as a lens for characterizing the participatory unit . In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 199–214). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. - Beatty, I. D., Gerace, W. J., Leonard, W. J., & Dufresne, R. J. (2005). Designing effective questions for classroom response system teaching. American Journal of Physics, 74(1), 31–39. DOI: 10.1119/1.2121753
- Biggs, J. B. (1987). Study Process Questionnaire Manual. Student approaches to learning and studying. Australian Council for Educational Research Ltd.
- Biggs, J. B. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university (2nd ed.). Maidenhead: Open University Press.
- Biggs, J. B., & Kirby, J. R. (1983). Approaches to learning in universities and CAEs. Vestes, 26, 3–9.
- Biggs, J. B., Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. P. (2001). The revised two factor study process questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(1), 133–149. DOI: 10.1348/000709901158433
- Borrego, M., Cutler, S., Prince, M., Henderson, C., & Froyd, J. E. (2013). Fidelity of implementation of research-based instructional strategies (RBIS) in engineering science courses. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(3), 394–425. DOI: 10.1002/jee.20020
- Borrego, M., & Henderson, C. (2014). Increasing the use of evidence-based teaching in STEM higher education: A comparison of eight change strategies. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(2), 220–252. DOI: 10.1002/jee.20040
- Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school: Expanded edition. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
- Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101. DOI: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
- Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42. DOI: 10.3102/0013189X018001032
- Brown, S., Wakeling, L., Naiker, M., & White, S. (2014). Approaches to study in undergraduate nursing students in regional Victoria, Australia. International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship, 11(1), 155–164. DOI: 10.1515/ijnes-2014-0020
- Bunce, D. M., Komperda, R., Schroeder, M. J., Dillner, D. K., Lin, S., Teichert, M. A., & Hartman, J. R. (2017). Differential use of study approaches by students of different achievement levels. Journal of Chemical Education, 94(10), 1415–1424. DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00202
- Case, J., & Marshall, D. (2004). Between deep and surface: Procedural approaches to learning in engineering education contexts. Studies in Higher Education, 29(5), 605–615. DOI: 10.1080/0307507042000261571
- Cifuentes, L., Xochihua, O. A., & Edwards, J. C. (2011). Learning in Web 2.0 environments: Surface learning and chaos or deep learning and self-regulation? Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 12(1), 1–21.
- Coward, H. R., Ailes, C. P., & Bardon, R. (2000). Progress of the engineering education coalitions. SRI International.
- Crawford, K., Gordon, S., Nicholas, J., & Prosser, M. (1994). Conceptions of mathematics and how it is learned: The perspectives of students entering university. Learning and Instruction, 4(4), 331–345. DOI: 10.1016/0959-4752(94)90005-1
- Daly, S. R., Adams, R. S., & Bodner, G. M. (2012). What does it mean to design? A qualitative investigation of design professionals’ experiences. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(2), 187–219. DOI: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2012.tb00048.x
- De Clercq, M., Galand, B., & Frenay, M. (2013). Chicken or the egg: Longitudinal analysis of the causal dilemma between goal orientation, self-regulation and cognitive processing strategies in higher education. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 39(1), 4–13. DOI: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2012.10.003
- DeMonbrun, M., Finelli, C. J., Prince, M., Borrego, M., Shekhar, P., Henderson, C., & Waters, C. (2017). Creating an instrument to measure student response to instructional practices. Journal of Engineering Education, 106(2), 273–298. DOI: 10.1002/jee.20162
- Ebenezer, J., Kaya, O. N., & Kasab, D. (2018). High school students’ reasons for their science dispositions: Community-based innovative technology-embedded environmental research projects. Research in Science Education. DOI: 10.1007/s11165-018-9771-2
- Elby, A. (1999). Another reason that physics students learn by rote. American Journal of Physics, 67(S1), S52–S57. DOI: 10.1119/1.19081
- Eley, M. G. (1992). Differential adoption of study approaches within individual students. Higher Education, 23(3), 231–254.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3447375 . DOI: 10.1007/BF00145015 - Ellis, R. A., & Bliuc, A. M. (2019). Exploring new elements of the student approaches to learning framework: The role of online learning technologies in student learning. Active Learning in Higher Education, 20(1), 11–24. DOI: 10.1177/1469787417721384
- Engestrom, Y. (1999).
Innovative learning in work teams: Analyzing cycles of knowledge creation in practice . In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen & R.-L. Punamäki-Gitai (Eds.), Perspectives on Activity Theory (pp. 377–404). Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511812774.025 - Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive Learning at Work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156. DOI: 10.1080/13639080020028747
- Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 399–483. DOI: 10.1207/S1532690XCI2004_1
- Entwistle, N. J. (2000). Promoting deep learning through teaching and assessment: Conceptual frameworks and educational contexts. Presented at the ESRC Teaching and Learning Research Programme, University of Leicester. Retrieved from
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00003220.htm - Entwistle, N. J., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. London: Croom Helm Ltd.
- Fransson, A. (1977). On qualitative differences in learning: IV—Effects of intrinsic motivation and extrinsic test anxiety on process and outcome. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 47(3), 244–257. DOI: 10.1111/j.2044-8279.1977.tb02353.x
- Gordon, C., & Debus, R. (2002). Developing deep learning approaches and personal teaching efficacy within a preservice teacher education context. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(4), 483–511. DOI: 10.1348/00070990260377488
- Greeno, J. G. (2006).
Learning in Activity . In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of: The learning sciences (pp. 79–96). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511816833.007 - Greeno, J. G., & Middle School Mathematics through Applications Project Group. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American Psychologist, 53(1), 5–26. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.53.1.5
- Hamm, S., & Robertson, I. (2010). Preferences for deep-surface learning: A vocational education case study using a multimedia assessment activity. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(7), 951–965. DOI: 10.14742/ajet.1027
- Hansen, E. J. (2011). Idea-based learning: A course design process to promote conceptual understanding. In Stylus Publishing, LLC.
- Jaber, L. Z., & Hammer, D. (2015). Learning to feel like a scientist. Science Education, 100(2), 189–220. DOI: 10.1002/sce.21202
- Jaber, L. Z., & Hammer, D. (2016). Engaging in science: A feeling for the discipline. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(2), 156–202. DOI: 10.1080/10508406.2015.1088441
- James, J. O., Svihla, V., & Qiu, C. (2018, June). Using design challenges to develop empathy in first-year courses. Paper presented at 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Salt Lake City, Utah. DOI: 10.18260/1-2--31202
- Johri, A., Olds, B. M., & O’Connor, K. (2014).
Situative frameworks for engineering learning research . In A. Johri & B. M. Olds (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research (pp. 47–66). Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139013451.006 - Kember, D. (1997). A reconceptualisation of the research into university academics’ conceptions of teaching. Learning and instruction, 7(3), 255–275. DOI: 10.1016/S0959-4752(96)00028-X
- Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. P. (1998). The dimensionality of approaches to learning: An investigation with confirmatory factor analysis on the structure of the SPQ and LPQ. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68(3), 395–407. DOI: 10.1111/j.2044-8279.1998.tb01300.x
- Koretsky, M., Montfort, D., Nolen, S. B., Bothwell, M., Davis, S., & Sweeney, J. (2018). Towards a stronger covalent bond: pedagogical change for inclusivity and equity. Chemical Engineering Education, 52(2), 117–127.
- Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174. DOI: 10.2307/2529310
- Leach, J., & Scott, P. (2003). Individual and sociocultural views of learning in science education. Science & Education, 12(1), 91–113. DOI: 10.1023/A:1022665519862
- Leander, K. M., & Brown, D. E. (1999). “You understand, but you don’t believe it”: Tracing the stabilities and instabilities of interaction in a physics classroom through a multidimensional framework. Cognition and Instruction, 17(1), 93–135. DOI: 10.1207/s1532690xci1701_4
- Leont’ev, A. N. (1974). The problem of activity in psychology. Soviet Psychology, 13(2), 4–33. DOI: 10.2753/RPO1061-040513024
- Lizzio, A., Wilson, K., & Simons, R. (2002). University Students’ Perceptions of the Learning Environment and Academic Outcomes: Implications for theory and practice. Studies in Higher Education, 27(1), 27–52. DOI: 10.1080/03075070120099359
- Lord, S. M., Berger, E. J., Kellam, N. N., Ingram, E. L., Riley, D. M., Rover, D. T., … Sweeney, J. (2017, June). Talking about a Revolution: Overview of NSF RED Projects: American Society for Engineering Education. Paper presented at the 2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Columbus, Ohio. DOI: 10.18260/1-2--28903
- Maciejewski, A. A., Chen, T. W., Byrne, Z. S., De Miranda, M. A., Sample McMeeking, L. B., Notaros, B. M., … Notaros, O. (2017). A holistic approach to transforming undergraduate electrical engineering education. IEEE Access, 5, 8148–8161. DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2017.2690221
- Magana, A. J., Fennell, H. W., Vieira, C., & Falk, M. L. (2019). Characterizing the interplay of cognitive and metacognitive knowledge in computational modeling and simulation practices. Journal of Engineering Education, 108(2), 276–303. DOI: 10.1002/jee.20264
- Marshall, D., Summer, M., & Woolnough, B. (1999). Students’ conceptions of learning in an engineering context. Higher Education, 38(3), 291–309. DOI: 10.1023/A:1003866607873
- Marton, F. (1981). Phenomenography—Describing conceptions of the world around us. Instructional Science, 10(2), 177–200. DOI: 10.1007/BF00132516
- Marton, F., & Booth, S. A. (1997). Learning and awareness. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.
- Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning: I—Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46(1), 4–11. DOI: 10.1111/j.2044-8279.1976.tb02980.x
- Nardi, B. A. (1996).
Studying context: A comparison of activity theory, situated action models, and distributed cognition . In Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-computer Interaction (pp. 69–102). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. - National Academy of Engineering. (2004). The Engineer of 2020: Visions of engineering in the new century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
- National Academy of Engineering. (2012). Infusing Real World Experiences into Engineering Education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
- Nijhuis, J. F., Segers, M. S., & Gijselaers, W. H. (2005). Influence of redesigning a learning environment on student perceptions and learning strategies. Learning Environments Research, 8(1), 67–93. DOI: 10.1007/s10984-005-7950-3
- Oden, M., Mirabal, Y., Epstein, M., & Richards-Kortum, R. (2010). Engaging undergraduates to solve global health challenges: a new approach based on bioengineering design. Annals of Biomedical Engineering, 38(9), 3031–3041. DOI: 10.1007/s10439-010-0036-0
- Offir, B., Lev, Y., & Bezalel, R. (2008). Surface and deep learning processes in distance education: Synchronous versus asynchronous systems. Computers & Education, 51(3), 1172–1183. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2007.10.009
- Phillips, M. E., & Graeff, T. R. (2014). Using an in-class simulation in the first accounting class: Moving from surface to deep learning. Journal of Education for Business, 89(5), 241–247. DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2013.863751
- Prosser, M. (1994).
Using phenomenographic research methods in large scale studies of student learning in higher education . In R. Ballantyne & C. Bruce (Eds.), Phenomenography: Philosophy and practice (pp. 321–332). Brisbane, Australia: QUT Publications and Printing. - Prosser, M., Trigwell, K., & Taylor, P. (1994). A phenomenographic study of academics’ conceptions of science learning and teaching. Learning and Instruction, 4(3), 217–231. DOI: 10.1016/0959-4752(94)90024-8
- Prosser, M., Walker, P., & Millar, R. (1996). Differences in students’ perceptions of learning physics. Physics Education, 31(1), 43–48. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9120/31/1/022
- Radoff, J., Jaber, L. Z., & Hammer, D. (2019). “It’s scary but it’s also exciting”: Evidence of meta-affective learning in science. Cognition and Instruction, 37(1), 73–92. DOI: 10.1080/07370008.2018.1539737
- Ramsden, P. (1991). A performance indicator of teaching quality in higher education: The Course Experience Questionnaire. Studies in Higher Education, 16(2), 129–150. DOI: 10.1080/03075079112331382944
- Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to Teach in Higher Education. London; New York: Routledge.
- Riessman, C. K. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
- Sivan, A., Leung, R. W., Woon, C. C., & Kember, D. (2000). An implementation of active learning and its effect on the quality of student learning. Innovations in education and training international, 37(4), 381–389. DOI: 10.1080/135580000750052991
- Smith, C., Bowen, A., Montfort, D., & Koretsky, M. (2014, June). Identification of Students’ Epistemological Frames in Engineering. Paper presented at 2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Indianapolis, Indiana. DOI: 10.18260/1-2--20576
- Smith, M. K., Jones, F. H., Gilbert, S. L., & Wieman, C. E. (2013). The Classroom Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM (COPUS): a new instrument to characterize university STEM classroom practices. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 12(4), 618–627. DOI: 10.1187/cbe.13-08-0154
- Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc.
- Tiwari, A., Chan, S., Wong, E., Wong, D., Chui, C., Wong, A., & Patil, N. (2006). The effect of problem-based learning on students’ approaches to learning in the context of clinical nursing education. Nurse Education Today, 26(5), 430–438. DOI: 10.1016/j.nedt.2005.12.001
- Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1991). Relating approaches to study and quality of learning outcomes at the course level. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 61(3), 265–275. DOI: 10.1111/j.2044-8279.1991.tb00984.x
- Tudor, J. (2013). An exploratory investigation into the context specific perceptions and practices of second year mechanical engineering undergraduates (Doctoral, Northumbria University).
- Vygotsky, L. S. (1978).
Interaction between learning and development . In Mind in Society. The development of higher psychological processes (pp. 79–91). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. - Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the Mind: Sociocultural Approach to Mediated Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Wertsch, J. V. (1994). The primacy of mediated action in sociocultural studies. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 1(4), 202–208. DOI: 10.1080/10749039409524672
- Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2005).
Understanding by design . Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. - Zeegers, P. (2002). A revision of the Biggs’ study process questionnaire (R-SPQ). Higher Education Research & Development, 21(1), 73–92. DOI: 10.1080/07294360220124666
- Zeegers, P. (2004). Student learning in higher education: A path analysis of academic achievement in science. Higher Education Research & Development, 23(1), 35–56. DOI: 10.1080/0729436032000168487
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21061/see.3 | Journal eISSN: 2690-5450
Language: English
Page range: 38 - 57
Submitted on: Aug 4, 2019
Accepted on: Sep 17, 2020
Published on: Nov 9, 2020
Published by: Virginia Tech Publishing
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
© 2020 Edward Michor, Milo Koretsky, published by Virginia Tech Publishing
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.