Psychometric Study of a Questionnaire for Academic Study Processes

of Portuguese College Students

D. Oliveira

, G. Esgalhado

, D. Oliveira

and N. M. Garcia

2,3

Psychology and Education Department, University of Beira Interior, Covilhã, Portugal

Computer Science Department, University of Beira Interior, Covilhã, Portugal

Instituto de Telecomunicações, Covilhã, Portugal

Keywords: Learning Approaches, Study Processes Questionnaire, Psychometric Study.

Abstract: Background: The assessment of the study processes or approaches to learning more often used by college

students as they are understood by Biggs and his collaborators is considered fundamental in providing tools

to better understand the way students learn and how this should be taken into account by tutors and teachers.

The choice of a deep approach to learning as opposed to a surface approach is often considered connected to

a more significant learning. Aim: This research aimed to adapt and validate the Revised Two Factor Study

Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F) (Biggs et al., 2001). for the Portuguese college student population.

Method: A population of 707 college students and internet users was used. From these 241 were male and

466 female. The participants’ age varied between 18 and 40 years old (M= 22.96; SD = 4.41). The inclusion

criteria used for the study was: (1) being Portuguese and studying in a Portuguese university, and (2)

willingness to participate in the study after learning its objectives. Participants were recruited through two

sampling methods: (1) Informal social networks. The eligible internet users who agreed to participate were

asked to refer their friends to participate in the study; and (2) The Internet. Material: Two instruments were

used in this assessment, a socio-demographic questionnaire to enable the characterization of the

participants’ age, gender, degree and University/college attendance and the Revised Two Factor Study

Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F) (Biggs et al., 2001). Results: The final Portuguese version has a total of

16 items, instead of the 20 items proposed by the original version. A principal components factor analysis

with varimax orthogonal rotation revealed a two factor structure, consistent with other researches using the

instrument but not confirming the four factor structure found in the original version. In this version factor I -

deep approach to learning, has a 9 items scope, and includes deep motives and deep strategies (α=.783),

with an explained variance of 20.463%; factor II - surface approach to learning has a 7 items scope, includes

surface motives and surface strategies (α=.751) and an explained variance of 16.544%. Deep and surface

approaches were analysed separately in relation to age gender and academic degree, and in all cases

significant statistical differences were found. Conclusion: The study provided evidence of the reliability and

validity of the instrument, which showed good psychometric characteristics. The results indicate the

Portuguese Revised Study Processes Questionnaire is an acceptable measure of learning approaches.

Authors like [2] consider that when students are confronted with a learning task, they use the learning

strategy that corresponds with their motivation to learn, in which case, it is important to analyse whether

students are opting more frequently for deep or surface approaches and act upon that knowledge in a

continuous effort to improve the learning process.

1 INTRODUCTION

To authors such as (Biggs, 1999) the acts of

teaching or the adequacy of the learning techniques

used by a teacher depend upon what each individual,

whether a teacher, a student or someone external to

the learning process feel is appropriate. This means

that learning acquisition isn’t bereft of subjectivism;

or rather there isn’t a single formula for the

teaching-learning process that ends up invariably in

academic success. From this point of view it

becomes clear that both teacher and student are

responsible for behaviour gains, which in turn

explains the importance of researching what every

individual thinks is more adequate.

According to (Kember et al., 1994) approaches

to learning are a direct characterization of the

learning process used by students, resulting in the

Oliveira D., Esgalhado G., Oliveira D. and M. Garcia N..

Psychometric Study of a Questionnaire for Academic Study Processes of Portuguese College Students.

DOI: 10.5220/0005443200850092

In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU-2015), pages 85-92

ISBN: 978-989-758-108-3

 2015 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)

creation of categories that classify those approaches,

which (Biggs, 1979) differentiates in relation with

the fact that some students study in order to develop

their skill, and others do it to be able to pass the year

or finish a certain academic task. These started to be

referred by [6,7] as deep learning and surface

learning, respectively, after researching done in an

academic context.

However, [1, 8] point out that the fact a student

prefers a deep or a surface approach to learning

doesn’t allow the student’s classification in a deep

learning student or a surface learning student. In this

respect, (Biggs, 1999) thinks that even though

students’ approaches to learning vary and aren’t a

stable trait of an individual, the knowledge of this

preferences might as expressed by (Alharbi et al.,

2011) help the teacher/tutor in searching and

creating study materials appropriate for every

student.

Even though both types of approach have

advantages and disadvantages, depending on the task

required, various authors suggest that the adoption

of a deep approach to learning might positively

influence academic results, because it leads to a

more meaningful learning (Gomes, 2011) and helps

develop ways of promoting the adoption of that

approach in the cases students aren’t using it

already, even though memorization and other

surface approach techniques might be adequate

when performing certain tasks, including evaluation

(Figueiredo, 2008).

Concerning the materials used to evaluate

learning conceptions and approaches to learning,

(Valadas et al., 2009) indicates that there are few

that have been normalized and validated for

Portuguese college students. The decision to use the

R-SPQ-2F (Biggs et al., 2001) derives from the fact

that this instrument was created to: (1) identify the

learning approaches preferred by students, indicating

how much a student differs from his peers in a

similar context; (2) ask students to fill a

questionnaire with questions adapted to a certain

task, which indicate how students actually perform

the task; (3) indicate the context evaluation,

providing information regarding differences between

classes or teaching environment. Furthermore, the

authors of this questionnaire believe it can be used in

different classes, institutions, and grade system

before and after introducing changes. On a last note,

the R-SPQ-2F has been used all over the world,

adapted when necessary, which renders it a natural

good choice.

2 AIM

This research aimed to adapt and validate a study

processes questionnaire for the Portuguese college

student population, while at the same time producing

comparative measurements of participants’ gender,

age, type of superior education institution of

enrolment (university or polytechnic institute),

degree of enrolment (graduate, masters, PhD) and

year of graduation participants are attending.

Various variables were studied: variables inherent to

the questionnaire, total scores and scores attributed

to the questionnaires dimensions. It was considered

that gender, age, degree and year of enrolment are

independent variables and students study processes

(deep and surface approach) are dependent variables.

3 METHOD

A population of 707 Portuguese college students

participated in this study.

3.1 Participants

3.1.1 Age

The 707 participants’ age varies from 18 to 40 years

(M=22.96; SD=4.41), as presented in Fig. 1.

Figure 1: Frequencial distribution by age.

3.1.2 Gender

From the total of participants 466 are female and

241 are male, as shown is Fig. 2.

3.1.3 Degree

Not every participant gave information about their

degree. In fact, 8 students didn’t provide this

information. From the remaining students, 9 have a

bachelor degree, 363 a graduate degree, 263 a

CSEDU2015-7thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation

masters, 16 a PhD and 48 participants signalled the

option “other” which means that even though

there’re enrolled, they have yet to conclude any

degree, as shown in Fig. 3.

Figure 2: Frequencial distribution by gender.

Figure 3: Frequencial distribution by degree.

3.1.4 Year

Not every participant gave information about their

degree. In fact, 8 students didn’t provide this

information. From Fig. 4 presents the information

about the year the students are enrolled in or have

successfully concluded, and the year they attend of

the referred degree. For the bachelor degree 3

students referred to being enrolled in a first year and

6 in the third year. Concerning graduate studies, a

total of 369 participants indicated this degree: 98 are

enrolled in the first year, 111 in the second and 160

in the third. A total of 262 are masters students with

87 enrolled in the first year and 175 in the second

year. Only 16 students were enrolled in a PhD. From

these 8 are enrolled in the curricular year and the

other 8 are in the second or third year of their thesis.

A total of 49 participants referred to being enrolled

in years 1 to 3 of “Other” degree.

3.2 Material

In this study two instruments were used: (1) Socio-

demographic questionnaire; and (2) Revised Two

Factor Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F)

(Biggs et al., 2001).

Figure 4: Frequencial distribution by study degree and

year of enrolment.

3.2.1 Socio-demographic Questionnaire

A socio-demographic questionnaire was built for the

study. In it the questions aimed to characterize

participants in terms of age, gender, academic

degree, year of the respective degree the participants

were enrolled at during the lective year 2013-2014,

type of establishment the participants were attending

(university or polytechnic institute) and the identity

of the referred establishment.

3.2.2 Two Factor Revised Study Processes

Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F)

(Biggs et al., 2001)

The R-SPQ-2F is composed of 20 items that

evaluate the approaches to learning, grouping them

into two dimensions, with 10 items evaluating deep

approach and 10 items evaluating surface approach.

Each scale has two subscales measuring motivation

and strategy components. This means the subscale

that measures deep learning is composed of 5 deep

motive items and 5 deep strategies items, while the

subscale that measures surface approach has 5 items

relating to surface motives and 5 items relating to

surface strategies. All items are classified in a 5

options Likert scale, between 1 (never or rarely true)

and 5 (always or almost always true).

The total score in each scale is calculated by the

sum of the score obtained in the items relating to it,

that is, for the Deep Learning scale, the sum is

comprised of items 1+2+5+6+9+10+13+14+17+18

and for the Surface Learning scale, the sum is

comprised of 3+4+7+8+11+12+15+16+19+20. To

calculate each subscale the sum of the corresponding

items is made: Deep motive: 1+5+9+13+17; Deep

strategy: 2+6+10+14+18; Surface motive:

3+7+11+15+19 and surface strategy:

PsychometricStudyofaQuestionnaireforAcademicStudyProcessesofPortugueseCollegeStudents

4+8+12+16+20. For each scale the score varies

between 10 and 50 and for each subscale between 5

and 25 (Biggs et al., 2001).

In this research, between the various models to

score the questionnaire’s items found in the

literature, the one used by (Hernández et al., 2002)

was chosen. In it the higher the medium score, the

more a type of approach is being used.

Because there have been many adaptations of the

R-SPQ-2F, in different languages, the results of

those psychometric studies vary. The Cronbach’s

alpha varies between .57 in (Biggs et al., 2001) and

.78 in (Leung and Chan, 2001) in the surface

strategy subscale, for example, and other such

differences can be found for the other 3 subscales.

Additionally not all adaptations found the proposed

two scales and 4 subscales structure found in the

original questionnaire (Biggs et al., 2001). In fact,

some studies suggest solely the presence of two

factors, namely the two approaches to learning (deep

and surface) [16-18], even after performing a second

or third order factorial analysis.

On a last note it should be added that the two

types of approaches to learning reflect both the

student’s intention towards learning and the

strategies the student uses to reach that knowledge.

3.3 Procedure

Previously to the development of this research a

literature review helped choose the learning concept

to be measured and studied. Following the choice of

variable, a review of the known instruments to

measure it was undertaken. Additionally it should be

noted that permission was asked and granted by the

author of the original instrument (Biggs et al., 2001)

for it to be validated and used in a sample of

Portuguese college students.

It was necessary to translate the original

instrument from English to Portuguese. The

Portuguese version results from a formal process of

linguistic adaptation, with translation and

retroversion by specialists in the English language

and in Psychology. The specialists targeted the

creation of a version equivalent with the original,

both from a linguistic structure as from a semantic

content stand point.

After finishing this step, the formal data

collection was initiated with a pilot study that used

six participants, and aimed to guarantee that both the

instructions and the questions or items in the

instrument were clear. It was necessary to do some

small alterations to account for the observations

made in the pilot study.

The instrument was made available using Google

forms and a link for the questionnaire was

distributed by email, Facebook, and personal contact

list, to the Portuguese college institutions and

students. Additionally word of mouth was also used

to spread the request for filling the research form.

During all the process anonymity and

confidentiality were guaranteed to all participants

and the instructions held an e-mail to handle all

possible questions and doubts.

Reception of answers to the questionnaire was

available during January 2014. The answers stored

in the online database provided with Google forms

was afterwards transferred to Excel (.xls) for initial

analysis and then migrated to SPSS v.22.0 for

further and more complete analysis.

4 RESULTS

In order to assure that the Portuguese version of the

revised study processes questionnaire could be used

in the future by other researchers in other studies,

the instrument was analysed in terms of it

sensibility, reliability and factorial analysis.

4.1 Sensibility

The sensibility analysis of the items was done

through measurements of Skewness and Kurtosis.

According to (DeVellis, 1991), І2І absolute values

indicate absence of dispersion which guarantees an

instrument sensibility. All items showed a good

sensibility with the exception of item 7, which was

for this reason eliminated. In Table 1 items and

corresponding sensibility values are presented.

After analysing sensibility, internal consistence

was also analysed.

4.2 Internal Consistence

The sensibility analysis of the items was done

through measurements of Skewness and Kurtosis.

According to (DeVellis, 1991), І2І absolute values

indicate absence of dispersion which guarantees an

instrument sensibility. All items showed a good

sensibility with the exception of item 7, which was

for this reason eliminated. In Table 1 items and

corresponding sensibility values are presented.

After analysing sensibility, internal consistence

was also analysed.

CSEDU2015-7thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation

4.3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis

An exploratory factor analysis was performed; that

is, without previous fixed dimensions items were

allowed to group and form dimensions. Afterwards

sample adequacy was tested through the Keiser

Meyer Olkin (KMO) test. This test whose scores

vary between 0 and 1, considers that scores close to

1 are evidence of an excellent adequacy (Marôco,

2011). For this instrument a KMO=.857 was

obtained. Furthermore, Bartlett’s test revealed an

X2=2897.626; p<.001, indicative of the adequacy of

performing the factor analysis. The principal

components method was applied to extract factors

and varimax rotation was used to arrive at the factor

solution.

Table 1: Skewness and Kurtosis values of the Portuguese

version of the items of the Revised Study Processes

questionnaire (Biggs et al., 2001).

Itens Skewness

Skewness

Std. Error

Kurtosis

Std. Error

1. Studying gives me a

sense of…

-.196 .092 -.470 .184

2. I have to work or study

hard…

-.161 .092 -.609 .184

3. My objective is to pass

the year…

1.007 .092 .310 .184

4. I only study seriously

what is given…

-.413 .092 -.502 .184

5. I feel that every subject

might…

-.305 .092 -.403 .184

6. I consider the majority

of new…

.154 .092 -.469 .184

7. I don’t think my course

is very…

1.996 .092 4.107 .184

8. I learn some things by

heart…

.666 .092 -.091 .184

9. I consider that studying

academic…

-.269 .092 -.549 .184

10. I ask myself

questions…

-.485 .092 -.192 .184

11. I believe I can obtain

approval in…

.578 .092 -.237 .184

12. Generally, I just

study…

.213 .092 -.528 .184

13. I study hard

because…

-.148 .092 -.387 .184

14. I spent a fair amount

of my…

.584 .092 .044 .184

15. I don’t consider it is

useful to study…

.934 .092 .648 .184

16. I consider teachers

don’t…

.088 .092 -.867 .184

17. I go to the majority of

classes with…

.389 .092 -.428 .184

18. I make it a point of

looking at…

-.205 .092 -.681 .184

19. I don’t see any reason

in…

.508 .092 -.213 .184

20. I believe the best way

to pass…

.876 .092 .312 .184

Initially four factors were produced, with a total

explained variance of 49.991%. Factor 1 is

comprised by 7 items relating to deep motives and

strategies and explains a total variance of 17.378 %,

with an alpha of.779; factor 2 is formed by 5 items

related to surface motives and strategies, and

explains a total variance of 13.224%, with an alpha

of .703; factor 3 has 3 items related to surface

motives and strategies and explains a total variance

of 11.117%; finally, factor 4 has 3 items related to

deep motives and strategies and explains a total

variance of 8.271%, with an alpha of .449, which

justifies the elimination of this dimension and,

consequently, of items 2, 17 e 18, even though

according to authors as (Ford et al.,1986) the alpha

score should be at least .40 to be considered

acceptable. Table 2 shows the organization of the

extracted factor analysis dimensions and the factor

scores for the items.

By observing table 2, it is possible to conclude

that the factor structure found in the theoretical

design of the instrument proposed by (Biggs et al.,

2001): 4 subscales resulting in 4 different factors,

isn’t verified in the present study.

Next, Scree Plot was analysed (Fig.5), and the

pronounced curvature considered consistent with a

two factors solution. Based on this information a

new factor analysis with varimax rotation was

performed, locking two factors.

Table 2: Component matrix by principal component

analysis, and items factor value.

Items Factors

I II III IV

9. I consider that studying

academic…

.721

6. I consider the majority of new… .719

14. I spent a fair amount of my… .707

13. I study hard because… .644

1. Studying gives me a sense of… .610

10. I ask myself questions… .486

5. I feel that every subject might… .430

16. I consider teachers don’t… .727

19. I don’t see any reason in… .676

15. I don’t consider it is useful to

study…

.624

12. Generally, I just study… .598

4. I only study seriously what is

given…

.578

3. My objective is to pass the year… .495

11. I believe I can obtain approval

in…

.805

8. I learn some things by heart… .796

20. I believe the best way to pass… .708

18. I make it a point of looking at… .657

2. I have to work or study hard… .605

17. I go to the majority of classes

with…

.422

Α .779 .736 .717 .449

Fixing the two factors, the explained total

variance of the instrument becomes 37.008%, and

the instrument is now composed of 2 factors. Factor

1 has 9 items related to deep approach, including

deep motives and strategies and is denominated

“Deep Approach”. This factor explains a variance of

20.463%, and has an alpha of .783; factor 2 is

composed by 7 items, including surface motives and

strategies, and is denominated “Surface Approach”.

This factor explains a variance of 16.544% and

presents a .751 alpha, as shown in Table 3.

PsychometricStudyofaQuestionnaireforAcademicStudyProcessesofPortugueseCollegeStudents

Figure 5: Scree plot graphic.

Table 3: Organization of the factor analysis extracted

dimensions, fixing two factors and presenting the factor

score values for each item.

Itens

I II

1. Studying gives me… .656

5. I feel that every… .437

6. I consider the… .627

9. I consider that… .666

10. I ask myself… .532

13. I study hard because… .694

14. I spent a fair amount of my… .674

17. I go to the majority of classes with… .487

18. I make it a point of looking at… .462

8. I learn some things by heart… .661

11. I believe I can obtain approval in…… .712

12. Generally, I just study… .578

15. I don’t consider it is useful to study… .542

16. I consider teachers don’t… .482

19. I don’t see any reason in… .571

20. I believe the best way to pass… .734

α .783 .751

Table 4: Portuguese Revised Study Processes

Questionnaire (QPER) final structure.

Itens

I II

1. Studying gives me a sense of… .656

5. I feel that every subject might… .437

6. I consider the majority of new… .627

9. I consider that studying

academic…

.666

10. I ask myself questions… .532

13. I study hard because… .694

14. I spent a fair amount of my… .674

17. I go to the majority of classes

with…

.487

18. I make it a point of looking at… .462

8. I learn some things by heart… .661

11. I believe I can obtain approval

in……

.712

12. Generally, I just study… .578

15. I don’t consider it is useful to

study…

.542

16. I consider teachers don’t… .482

19. I don’t see any reason in… .571

20. I believe the best way to pass… .734

α .783 .751

Dimensions Items

Deep Approach 1, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17, 18

Surface Approach 8, 11, 12, 15, 16, 19, 20

The Portuguese Revised Study Processes

Questionnaire (QPER) presents a two scales factor

structure and not the 4 subscales presented in the

original instrument (Biggs et al., 2001).

Furthermore, the Portuguese questionnaire is

composed of 16 items and not the 20 items of the

original.

The structure and total score calculus

proceedings for each approach result of the total

score of the sum of the items in each respective

dimension as shown in Table 4.

Besides validating the instrument, the data

collected in this research was further analysed to

study its compliancy with proposed hypothesis on

whether gender, age and degree of scholarship might

produce statistical significant differences in one or

both of the scales.

The research found that there is a significant

statistical difference between genders. In terms of

Surface Approach male students (M=16.73;

SD=4.38) have higher scores than female students

(M=15.45; SD=4.26), with a statistical significant

difference of p<.001. When analysing Deep

Approach, results showed than female students (M=

28.03; SD= 5.34) have higher scores than male

students (M= 26.75; SD= 4.91), and there is also a

significant statistical difference between genders

(p<.005). To both genders higher scores were

obtained in the Deep Approach dimension.

When age was analysed, a significant statistical

difference was found between students with ages

between 23 and 40 years old and deemed older

students (M=28.56; SD=5.07) and students with

ages between 18 and 22 years old and deemed

younger students (M=26.91; SD=5.24), and older

students scoring higher in the Deep Approach

dimension (p<.001). In terms of the Surface

Approach dimension, a significant statistical

difference was also found (p<.05), but in this case

younger students (M=16.20; SD= 4.30) scored

higher than older students (M= 15.45; SD= 4.36).

Concerning age, both younger and older students

obtained higher scores in the Deep Approach

dimension.

Significant statistical differences were also found

between students with a higher degree and a lower

degree. In this case, for the Surface Approach

dimension, students with a higher degree (M=15.53;

SD=4.17) scored lower than students with a lower

degree (M=16.19; SD=4.47) and the statistical

significant difference is p<.05). As for the Deep

Approach, in this case students with a higher degree

(M= 28.08; SD= 5.09) scored higher than students

with a lower degree (M= 27.17; SD= 5.31), and

there’s also a significant statistical difference

(p<.05). Lastly, in what concerns students with a

higher or a lower degree, students scored higher in

the Deep Approach dimension.

CSEDU2015-7thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation

5 CONCLUSIONS

According to authors such as Lublin, (2003) Pashler

et al. (2008) and de Souza et al. (2010) the need to

promote an educational context that facilitates the

students’ learning process requires a precise

diagnostic of the individual types and approaches to

learning these students use. This diagnostics is

possible by using available instruments that study

the approaches to learning adopted by students when

they’re faced with different academic tasks and how

to adapt the teaching method and techniques in

response to those findings.

In this research a particular instrument (Biggs et

al., 2001) whose characteristics and objectives were

in line with the researchers study was selected, more

so because this instrument has been adapted by

several researchers for different populations.

In the process of adapting and validating the

original instrument, the results of the Portuguese

Revised Study Processes Questionnaire were found

to not replicate the factor structure found on the

original instrument, however they were similar to

those found by other researchers when validating

and adapting the original instrument to their own

samples. The researchers concluded that the

Portuguese version of the instrument showed good

psychometric properties that make it suitable to

apply in studies using samples of Portuguese college

students.

Besides enabling the production of a validated

instrument, by analysing the data collected the

researchers acquired valuable knowledge related not

only to what approach to learning is more often

used, but also how variables like gender, age and

academic degree might influence student choices.

Knowing the choices made by students and how

those are influenced can allow teachers and tutors to

analyse how the techniques and methods they are

employing are influencing students in their choices

of approaches to learning, and also help teachers and

tutors develop ways to adapt their techniques and

methods in the hopes of providing a learning

environment that promotes the predominant use of a

deep approach to learning and therefore make sure

students have a more meaningful learning, which

authors associate with the predominant use of a deep

approach to learning.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would also like to acknowledge the

contribution of the COST Action IC1303 –

AAPELE.

The authors acknowledge the funding for this

research in the scope of R&D Unit 50008, financed

through the project UID/EEA/50008/2013.

REFERENCES

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, 133-149.

Biggs, J. B. (1985). The role of metalearning in study

processes. British Journal of Educational Psychology,

55 (3), November, 185-212.

Biggs, J. (1999) What the Student Does: teaching for

enhanced learning. Higher Education Research &

Development, 18, (1), 55. Publisher: Routledge.

Kember, D., Charlesworth, M., Davies, H., McKay J. &

Stott, V. (1994). Evaluating the effectiveness of

educational innovations: using the study process

questionnaire to show that meaningful learning occurs.

Studies in Educational Evaluation, 23 (2), 141-157.

Biggs, J. (1979). Individual differences in study processes

and the quality of learning outcomes. Higher education

8. Springer Magazine. Elsevier scientific publishing

company. Amsterdam, 381-394.

Marton, F., & Saljö, R. (1976a). On qualitative differences

in learning: I - outcome and process. British Journal of

Psychology, 46(4), 4-11.

Marton, F., & Saljö, R. (1976b). On qualitative differences

in learning: II - outcome as a function of the learners

conception of the task. British Journal of Psychology,

46(4), 115-127.

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.

Biggs, J. (1999) Teaching for quality learning at

university. Buckingham: Society for Research into

Higher Education and Open University Press.

Alharbi, A., Paul, D., Henskens, F. & Hannaford, M.

(2011). An Investigation into the Learning Styles and

Self- Regulated Learning Strategies for Computer

Science Students. In Proceedings of ASCILITE -

Australian Society for Computers in Learning in

Tertiary Education Annual Conference, 36-46.

Gomes, C. M. A. (2011). Abordagem profunda e

abordagem superficial à aprendizagem: diferentes

perspectivas do rendimento escolar. Psicologia:

reflexão e crítica. 24(3), 479-488.

Figueiredo, F. J. C. (2008). Como ajudar os alunos a

estudar e a pensar?: Auto-regulação da aprendizagem.

Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia, RE, 34, Ed. Instituto

Politécnico de Viseu, Abril, 233-258.

Valadas, S. T., Gonçalves, F. R., & Faísca, L. (2009).

Estudo de tradução, adaptação e validação do ASSIST

numa amostra de estudantes universitários

PsychometricStudyofaQuestionnaireforAcademicStudyProcessesofPortugueseCollegeStudents

portugueses. Revista Portuguesa de Educação, 22 (2),

191-217.

Hernández Pina F., Sanz, M. P. G., Martínez, P. C.,

Hervás, R. M. A. & Maquilón, J. S. (2002).

Consistencia entre motivos y estrategias de

aprendizaje en estudantes universitários. Revista de

Investigación Educativa, 20 (2), 487-510.

Leung, M.-T. & Chan, K.-W. (2001) Construct validity

and psychometric properties of the Revised Two-

factor Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F) in the

Hong Kong context. Melbourne Australian

Association for Research in Education. Paper

presented at the AARE 2001 conference, 2-6

December, 2001 at the Notre Dame University, Perth,

Australia. URL: http://www.aare.edu.au/01pap/

cha01708.htm. Consultado a 30/07/2014.

Gargallo, B., Garfella, P.R. & Pérez, C. (2006). Enfoques

de aprendizaje y rendimento académico en estudiantes

universitarios. Bordón. Revista de Pedagogía, 58 (3),

45-57.

Phan, H. P. (2006). Examination of Student Learning

Approaches, Reflective Thinking, and Epistemological

Beliefs: A Latent Variables Approach. Journal of

Research in Educational Psychology, 10 (4 (3)), 577-

610.

Phan, H. P. & Deo, B. (2008). Revisiting the South Pacific

approaches to learning: a confirmatory factor analysis

study. Higher Education Research & Development, 27

(4), 371-383.

DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale Development: Theory and

Applications. Journal of Educational Measurement, 31

(1), Spring, 1994, 79-82.

Marôco, J. (2011). Análise Estatística com o SPSS

Statistics 5ª edição.

Ford, J. K., MacCallum, R. C. & Tait, M. (1986). The

application of exploratory factor analysis in applied

psychology: a critical review and analysis. Personnel

Psychology, 39 (2), June, 291-314.

Lublin, J. (2003). Deep, surface and strategic approaches

to learning. Centre for Teaching and Learning - Good

Practice in Teaching and Learning. Dublin.

Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D. & Bjork, R. (2008).

Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence.

Psychological Science In The Public Interest. A

journal of the association for psychological science, 9

(3), December, 106-116.

de Souza, R. B. de L. & de Souza, L. N. (2010) Um

mergulho nos aspectos da aprendizagem profunda nos

cursos de ciências contábeis do brasil. Revista de

negócios – Business review, 9, March.

CSEDU2015-7thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation