Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 116 (2014) 1556 – 1561

5th World Conference on Educational Sciences - WCES 2013

Learning Approaches of Vocational High School Students: Grade

Level and School Type Influences
Esma ÇOLAK a Defne KAYA1 b
a
Asst.Prof.Dr, Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University, Şişli,İstanbul,Turkey
b
Res.Asst, Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University, Şişli,İstanbul,Turkey

A bstract
Abstract
Abstract
In today’s educational context there is a need to focus on variables that affect learning. One of these variables is the learning
approach, which encompasses students’ motives and strategies for learning. The purpose of the study is to examine the learning
approach (deep, surface) preferences of vocational high school students according to the variables of grade level and school type.
The data of the study have been gathered through Learning Approaches Inventory adapted into Turkish by Çolak and Fer (2007).
Inventory was applied to tenth and eleventh grade students studying at Vocational and Technical High School. Data analyzed by
MANOVA. Findings were discussed regarding to the literature.

© 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Academic World Education and Research Center.
Keywords: Learning approach, deep learning strategies, surface learning strategies, vocational and technical high schools

1.Introduction
1 .II ntroduction
1.Introduction
In recent years learning approaches has become an important concept in explaining differences in students’
learning and how it affects students’ achievement (Case & Gunstone, 2001). Studies have shown that students can
use different approaches when trying to accomplish a learning task (Tang, 1994). The motive and strategies used for
learning together define one’s learning approach (Ellez & Sezgin, 2002). Qualitative (Marton and Saljö, 1976) and
quantitative (Biggs, 1987) studies have identified surface and deep approaches to learning. While surface approach
emphasizes on reproduction of received information, deep approach involves discovery and construction of meaning
(Biggs, 1987). Intending to understand the ideas for oneself, a student using deep approach looks for patterns and
underlying principles and becomes intrinsically interested in the subject. Students using surface approach intend to
cope with course requirements by memorizing facts and procedures and feels pressure, stress and worry about work
(Zhang & Sternberg, 2000).
It’s a subject of debate in the literature whether one’s learning approach is fixed or can be varied according to the
learning context (Beattie, Collins & McInnes, 1997). Some studies point that variables such as differences in
teaching, past experiences, curriculum (relevance, volume of work, assessment, etc.) affects students’ learning

1 Corresponding Author :Kaya. Tel.: 90-212-246-0011

E-mail address: defne.kaya@msgsu.edu.tr

1877-0428 © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Academic World Education and Research Center.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.434
 Esma Çolak and Defne Kaya / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 116 (2014) 1556 – 1561 1557

approach (McLean, 2001). In addition to that, subject area and content, learning environment, interest in the subject,
nature of education and personal characteristics like age, gender and grade have an impact on which learning
approach one will employ for learning (Biggs 1987; Ünal, 2005; Ak, 2008; Nelson Laird, Shoup, Kuh & Schwarz,
2008).

Among many educational and personal variables, grade level also has an effect on learning approach. However,
studies done on this variable have different results. Watkins, Hattie and Astilla (1986) have shown in their studies
that students progressed from one year to another used more and more deep learning approach strategies (cited in
Cano, 2005). On the contrary, Eklund-Myrskog and Wenestam (1999) found that students attending higher grade
levels employ less deep approach strategies than students in lower grade levels. This conflicting results show that,
learning approaches are dependent upon more variables found in the learning context (Beattie, Collins & McInnes,
1997). One of these variables is school type. Since school type can influence the learning context and therefore the
learning approach, it is important to study whether school type can change one’s approach to learning. In Turkey,
there are many types of secondary schools students can attend. While some of them (e.g. Anatolian high schools,
Anatolian technical and Anatolian vocational high schools) have higher entry requirements, general high schools
and vocational high schools accept students with lower academic scores (Gökçe, 2008). This profile of students also
has an influence on curriculum, assessment and instructional methods. It is therefore thought that learning
approaches can also be dependent upon school types.

Within this theoretical framework, the aim of this study is to examine the deep and surface approach of
vocational and technical high school students according to the variables of their school type and grade level

2 .M
M ethod

2.1. Research Model

This study uses survey methodology because it aims to describe an existing situation. Studies using survey
methodology aim to provide accurate descriptions of a past or present situation (Karasar, 2005).

2.2. Participants

The study group of students consisted of a total of 269 (138 vocational high school students and 131 technical
high school students) second and third grade students from various departments of a Vocational and Technical High
School in one of the central towns of İstanbul during 2012-2013 education and instruction year. The descriptive
statistics of the participants are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of The Participants

School Type
Vocational Technical
High School High School Total
Grade 10th grade 72 56 128
Level 11th grade 66 75 141
Total 138 131 269
1558 Esma Çolak and Defne Kaya / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 116 (2014) 1556 – 1561

As illustrated in Table 1, there are 138 out of 269 students from vocational high school students, 131 out of 269
students from technical high school.

2.3. Data Collection Tools

A survey which formed two parts, distributed to students. First part included independent variables (gender,
department, class, school type). In the second part of the survey, in order to determine the students’ learning
approaches, ‘Learning Process Questionnaire’ which was developed by Biggs, Kember and Leung (2004) based on
the learning approach theory for the secondary schools students was used. The questionnaire has two scales as
Surface and Deep approach, each with 11 items making a total of 22 items. The scale was adapted to Turkish by
Çolak and Fer (2007). The reliability of the sub-dimensions was found 0.79 for the deep approach and 0.72 for the
surface approach.

2.4. Data Analysis

In order to test the hypotheses of the study, MANOVA was used. The dependent variables of the study were
school type and grade level. On the other hand, the independent variables were deep and surface approach scores.
Alpha level determined as .05 for all statistics.

3 .R
R esults and Discussion

The learning approach (deep, surface) preferences of vocational and technical high school students are shown in
Table 2.

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics of Deep and Surface Approach Scores

School Grade
Type Level Mean Std. Deviation N
Deep Approach Vocational 10 34.64 6.30 72
High 11 32.79 5.88 66
School
Total 33.75 6.15 138
Technical 10 33.53 6.83 56
High 11 34.12 6.47 75
School
Total 33.87 6.61 131
Total 10 34.15 6.53 128
11 33.49 6.22 141
Total 33.81 6.37 269
Surface Approach Vocational 10 35.04 5.79 72
High 11 36.45 6.34 66
School
Total 35.71 6.08 138
Technical 10 36.07 5.96 56
High 11 34.48 6.04 75
School
Total 35.16 6.03 131
Total 10 35.49 5.86 128
11 35.40 6.24 141
Total 35.44 6.05 269
 Esma Çolak and Defne Kaya / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 116 (2014) 1556 – 1561 1559

As can be seen in Table 2, total deep and surface learning scores of vocational high school students are 33.75
and 35.71; the same scores for technical high school students are 33.87 and 35.16.

Before MANOVA was conducted in order to test the hypothesis, the assumptions of normality, and also
homogeneity of variance and covariance matrices was performed. The normal distribution of the deep and surface
approach scores inspected by Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test (zDEEP=1.09, zSURFACE=0.76, p>0.05) showed that the
distribution was normal. The homogeneity of population covariance matrix for dependent variables of MANOVA
was checked by inspecting Box’s M Test of Equality of Covariance Matrices and Levene’s test [Box's Test of
Equality of Covariance Matrices M=5,08 F(9-659954,61)=0.55 p>0.05; Levene's equality of error variances test
FDEEP= 0.42 (3-265) FSURFACE=0.34 (3-265) p>0.05] was found appropriate to be employed the MANOVA.
According to these results Wilks’ Lambda test statistic is used in interpreting the MANOVA results.

Table 3. MANOVA Results For Grade Level and School Type Differences Attributed Deep and Surface Approaches

E ffect V alue F df E rror df

Intercept Wilks’ Lambda .02 7389.48 2 264

School Type Wilks’ Lambda .99 .22 2 264
Grade Level Wilks’ Lambda .99 .32 2 264
School Type*Grade Level Wilks’ Lambda .97 3.70 2 264

Significant difference was found among the dependent variables with respect to school type and grade (p<0.05).
However, there exists no significant interaction between school type or grade separately.

Table 4. ANOVA Results For Grade Level and School Type Differences Attributed Deep and Surface Approaches

S ource D ependent Variable T ype III Sum df M ean Square F S ig.

of Squares
Corrected Model Deep Approach 129.84a 3 43.28 1.06 .36
Surface Approach 170.79b 3 56.93 1.56 .19
Intercept Deep Approach 302955.50 1 302955.50 7471.34 .00
Surface Approach 335003.11 1 335003.11 9188.45 .00
School Type Deep Approach .87 1 .87 .02 .88
Surface Approach 14.82 1 14.82 .40 .52
Grade Deep Approach 26.64 1 26.64 .65 .41
Surface Approach .53 1 .52 .01 .90
School Type *
Deep Approach 98.46 1 98.46 2.42 .12
Grade Level
Surface Approach 149.85 1 149.85 4.11 .04
Error Deep Approach 10745.49 265 40.54
Surface Approach 9661.67 265 36.45
Total Deep Approach 318381.00 269
Surface Approach 347811.00 269
Corrected Total Deep Approach 10875.33 268
Surface Approach 9832.46 268
1560 Esma Çolak and Defne Kaya / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 116 (2014) 1556 – 1561

From the results shown in Table 4, there exist statistically significant mean differences among surface approach

In other words, vocational high school eleventh grade students’ surface approach scores (=36.45) higher than the
vocational high school tenth grade students (=35.04). Technical high school eleventh grade students’ surface
approach scores (=34.48) are lower than the technical high school tenth grade students (=36.07).

From these results it can be seen that vocational high school students’ surface approach scores increase as they
move from tenth to eleventh grade. However in technical high schools eleventh grade students’ surface approach
scores are lower. This can imply that in the learning context of vocational high schools students are more
encouraged to use learning strategies involving memorization. Special attention should be given to the reason of this
tendency, because the purpose of secondary education should be to develop critical thought, problem solving skills,
and learning to learn (Kember, 2000). Having such a purpose, high school students are expected to use more deep
approach strategies. However, as this study also has shown, it is mostly not the case. So, it has to be questioned how
students perceive what is expected from them in the context of curriculum, teaching methods and assessment
(Biggs&Moore, 1993 cited in Cano, 2005). In the vocational high school case, for example, curriculum, teaching
methods and assessment are more focused on doing rather than thinking. In other words, in vocational high schools,
the purpose is to teach “how to do” and linking doing with thinking is mostly underemphasized. Consequently, it is
not a surprise that students use more and more surface approach strategies as they move higher through the grades.
In summary, it can be said that which learning approach strategies students use in a particular school also give some
clues about the quality of education they are receiving (Biggs, 2001).
This result needs to be supported with new investigations from the researchers. Further experimental and
descriptive research are needed to clarify the nature of the deep or surface learning approaches at different school
types and grade levels to facilitate a better understanding of the learning approaches of students. On the other hand
longitudinal researches may light the way to see closer relations between learning approaches and different learning
variables. Along with this, the educators might be suggested to stay away from rewarding the students who show a
tendency for surface learning approach, and to make effort in the direction of guiding students towards the deep
learning approach both in vocational and technical high schools.

R eferences

Ak, Ş. (2008). A conceptual analysis on the approaches to learning.Educational Sciences:Theory&Practice, 8(3), 707-720
Beattie, V., Collins, B., & Mcinnes, B. (1997). Deep and surface learning: a simple or simplistic dichotomy?.Accounting Education, 6(1), 1-12.
Biggs, J.B. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Camberwell, Victoria: Australian Council of Educational Research.
Biggs, J. B. (2001). Enhancing learning: a matter of style or approach?. In R. Sternberg & L. Zhang (Eds.),Perspectives on thinking, learning and
cognitive styles (pp73-102). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cano, F. (2005). Epistemological beliefs and approaches to learning: Their change through secondary school and their influence on academic
performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(2), 203-221.
Case, J., & Gunstone, R. (2001, July). ‘No time to think’-Interactions between students’ perceptions of time and approaches to learning. Paper
presented at Higher education close up conference, Lancester University.
Çolak, E., & Fer, S. (2007). Öğrenme yaklaşımları envanterinin dilsel eşdeğerlik, güvenirlik ve geçerlik çalışması. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal
Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 16(1), 197-212.
Eklund
Myrskog, G., & Wenestam, C. G. (1999). Students’ approaches to learning in Finnish general upper secondary school. Scandinavian
journal of educational research, 43(1), 5-18.
Ellez, A. M. & Sezgin, G. (2002, September). Öğretmen adaylarının öğrenme yaklaşımları. V. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi
Kongresi. ODTÜ Kültür ve Kongre Merkezi, Ankara.
Entwistle, N., McCune, V., & Walker, P. (2001). Conceptions, styles, and approaches within higher education: Analytical abstractions and
everyday experience.
Gökçe, S. (2008). Attitudes and motivational intensity of foreign language learners at vocational high schools: A comparative study. .
(Unpublished master's thesis). Institue of Social Sciences, Middle East Technicel University.
 Esma Çolak and Defne Kaya / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 116 (2014) 1556 – 1561 1561

Karasar, N. (2005). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi. Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.

Kember, D. (2000). Misconceptions about the learning approaches, motivation and study practices of Asian students. Higher Education, 40(1),
99-121.
Marton, F., & Saljö, R. (1976). On Qualitative Differences In Learning—II Outcome As a Function of the Learner’s Conception of the Task.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46(2), 115-127.
McLean, M. (2001). Can we relate conceptions of learning to student academic achievement?. Teaching in Higher Education, 6(3), 399-413.
Nelson Laird, T. F., Shoup, R., Kuh, G. D., & Schwarz, M. J. (2008). The effects of discipline on deep approaches to student learning and college
outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 49(6), 469-494.
Zhang, L. F., & Sternberg, R. J. (2000). Are learning approaches and thinking styles related? A study in two Chinese populations. The Journal of
Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 134(5), 469-489.
Tang, C. (1994). Assessment and student learning: Effects of modes of assessment on students' preparation strategies. Improving student
learning: Theory and practice, 151-170.