British Journal of Educational Psychology 

About: British Journal of Educational Psychology is an academic journal published by British Psychological Society. The journal publishes majorly in the area(s): Academic achievement & Reading (process). It has an ISSN identifier of 0007-0998. Over the lifetime, 3104 publications have been published receiving 141068 citations.

On qualitative differences in learning: i—outcome and process*

Abstract: Summary. This paper describes an attempt to identify different levels of processing of information among groups of Swedish university students who were asked to read substantial passages of prose. Students were asked questions about the meaning of the passages and also about how they set about reading the passages. This approach allows processes and strategies of learning to be examined, as well as the outcomes in terms of what is understood and remembered. The starting point of this research was that learning has to be described in terms of its content. From this point differences in what is learned, rather than differences in how much is learned, are described. It was found that in each study a number of categories (levels of outcome) containing basically different conceptions of the content of the learning task could be identified. The corresponding differences in level of processing are described in terms of whether the learner is engaged in surface-level or deep-level processing.

Non-formal learning and tacit knowledge in professional work

Abstract: Background. This paper explores the conceptual and methodological problems arising from several empirical investigations of professional education and learning in the workplace. Aims. 1. To clarify the multiple meanings accorded to terms such as ‘ non-formal learning’, ‘ implicit learning’ and ‘ tacit knowledge’, their theoretical assumptions and the range of phenomena to which they refer. 2. To discuss their implications for professional practice. Method. A largely theoretical analysis of issues and phenomena arising from empirical investigations. Analysis. The author's typology of non-formal learning distinguishes between implicit learning, reactive on-the-spot learning and deliberative learning. The significance of the last is commonly overemphasised. The problematic nature of tacit knowledge is discussed with respect to both detecting it and representing it. Three types of tacit knowledge are discussed: tacit understanding of people and situations, routinised actions and the tacit rules that underpin intuitive decision-making. They come together when professional performance involves sequences of routinised action punctuated by rapid intuitive decisions based on tacit understanding of the situation. Four types of process are involved-reading the situation, making decisions, overt activity and metacognition-and three modes of cognition-intuitive, analytic and deliberative. The balance between these modes depends on time, experience and complexity. Where rapid action dominates, periods of deliberation are needed to maintain critical control. Finally the role of both formal and informal social knowledge is discussed; and it is argued that situated learning often leads not to local conformity but to greater individual variation as people's careers take them through a series of different contexts. This abstract necessarily simplifies a more complex analysis in the paper itself. (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1348/000709900158001/abstract)

The revised two-factor study process questionnaire : R-SPQ-2F

Abstract: Aim. To produce a revised two-factor version of the Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F) suitable for use by teachers in evaluating the learning approaches of their students. The revised instrument assesses deep and surface approaches only, using fewer items. Method. A set of 43 items was drawn up for the initial tests. These were derived from: the original version of the SPQ, modified items from the SPQ, and new items. A process of testing and refinement eventuated in deep and surface motive and strategy scales each with 5 items, 10 items per approach score. The final version was tested using reliability procedures and confirmatory factor analysis. Sample. The sample for the testing and refinement process consisted of 229 students from the health sciences faculty of a university in Hong Kong. A fresh sample of 495 undergraduate students from a variety of departments of the same university was used for the test of the final version. Results. The final version of the questionnaire had acceptable Cronbach alpha values for scale reliability. Confirmatory factor analysis indicated a good fit to the intended two-factor structure. Both deep and surface approach scales had well identified motive and strategy subscales. Conclusion. The revision process has resulted in a simple questionnaire which teachers can use to evaluate their own teaching and the learning approaches of their students.

On qualitative differences in learning—ii outcome as a function of the learner's conception of the task

Abstract: Summary. Two groups of 20 first-year students were asked to read three sections of a textbook. After the first two sections the groups received different types of question. One group received questions which demanded a thorough understanding of the meaning of the passage. The other group was given detailed factual questions. After the final section of reading a common set of questions of both types was asked. Besides providing further evidence of qualitative differences in learning, the experiment showed that students did adapt their way of learning to their conception of what was required of them.