Political Participation

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/325019593
Political Participation of the Educated in Pakistan
Article · May 2018
CITATIONS READS
0 905
1 author:
Ifra Iftikhar
Superior University
5 PUBLICATIONS 6 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
basic understanding of political concepts View project
Role of News media in promoting Deliberative Democracy View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Ifra Iftikhar on 13 September 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Elementary Education
Vol.21, No. 1 pp.25-42
Political Participation of the Educated in Pakistan
Ifra Mushtaq*
Muhammad Abiodullah**
Rafaqat Ali Akber**
_______________________________________________________________
Abstract
This study examined the participatory behavior of the individuals in the political system
focusing on their socio economic resource level (SERL). Three categories based on education
and income were identified as high, middle, and low SERL referring to their respective
education and income level accordingly. Drawing from theories of public sphere and
deliberative democracy it was premised that individual belonging to high SERL would likely
to consume more of news media and more involved in political talk therefore tend to
participate more in the political activities. It was found out that indeed high SERL group,
consumes more news media, is more engaged in political conversations and political
participation but the difference is not impressionable. They were found to engaged more in
passive kind of participatory activities rather than active or pro active kinds.
Key words: Political participation, socio-economic resource level (SERL), political
conversation.
_______________________________________________________________
Introduction
Every developed and consolidated democracy has emerged from mass
democratic culture. Researchers are now convinced that for sustainable and effective
democracy mass democratic political culture is needed (Sargent, 2008). The
democratic culture comprising of citizens who are actively interested in public affairs,
_______________________________________________________________
*PhD Scholar, Institute of Communication Studies, Punjab University, Lahore
**Assistant Professor, Institute of Education and Research, Punjab University, Lahore
***Professor, Institute of Education and Research, Punjab University, Lahore
Political Participation of the Educated in Pakistan 26
informed about important events and decisions and participates in civic and political
affairs (Inkeles, 1974; Harber, 1997; Huber & Harkavy, 2007). Citizens’ involvement
is a necessary condition for participation, which is required to influence or to help
implement the governmental policies (Box, 2007; Flores, 2005). Participation means
“those actions of citizens that attempt to influence the structure of government, the
selection of government officials, or the policies of government or to support
government and politics” (Janda, Berry, Goldman, & Hula, 2012, p. 155). This
includes both conventional and unconventional participation. Conventional
participation refers to the routine peaceful way of voicing concerns using established
institutions of the government and acceptable in the democratic culture (Vorhölter,
2010; Youth Partnership (Organization), 2009; Axford & Browning, 2002).
Education is found to be the strongest predictor of conventional participation evident
from the fact that those who protest against the governmental policies often tend to be
better educated (Jenlink, 2009; Perrin, 2006). According to the standard
socioeconomic model of participation socioeconomic status is strongly related to
political participation. People with more education and higher incomes tend to
participate more because they are more conscious of the impact of politics on their
lives and aware of the legitimate ways to influence government actions (Janda, et al.,
2012; Wong, 2006; Kim, 2008).
Theories of deliberative democracy (Button & Mattson, 1999; Dahlgreen,
2002; Cook, Carpini, & Jacobs, 2007; Gutman & Thompson, 2004) and public sphere
(Habermas, 1992; Dahlgreen & Sparks, 1991; Gastil J. , 2007; Bennett & Entman,
2001) posit that media use and political conversations motivate people for expressing
their opinions and preferences by active participation in the political process. Those
who are more informed due to news media viewing are more likely to engage in
political conversations frequently and motivated to actively express their preferences
by political participation (Wyatt, Katz, & Kim, 2000; Eveland, Morey, & Hively,
2009; Dahlgreen, 2002).
Political conversation is accepted as an essential element of any democratic
political system, aptly put by John Dewey that “democracy begins in conversation”
(Dewey, 1997). The association of conversation and participation is explained by the
deliberative theorists as: individuals get information from media, they in their
everyday conversations discuss and exchange views on it, these discussions help
them to better understand the issue thereby form clear opinion about it and in turn
express their opinions or decisions in form of some political action i.e. participation.
(The deliberative potencial of political discussion, 2000; Bennett, 2003).
Conversation means any ordinary talk that occurs between people on various topics,
oftentimes purely expressive, non-purposive and non-persuasive (Conover, Searing,
Ifra, Abiodullah & Rafaqat 27
& Crewe, 2000; Eveland, Morey, & Hively, 2009; Huckfeldt & Sprague, 1987;
Huckfeldt & Sprague, 1991; Rojas H. , 2008).These everyday ordinary conversations
provide opportunities to exchange information and viewpoints regarding the issues of
common concern affecting their community, and more importantly expose
individuals to legitimate ways on how to deal with those issues and participate
effectively in civic and political matters (Gastil & Dillard, 1999; Klofstad, 2007;
McClurg, 2003; McLeod, Moy, E. M., R. L., & et al;Rojas, Shah, J., M., Keum, &
Gil de Zúñiga, 2005) 1999). Habermas’ (1984) describes conversation as a
‘communicative action’, according to which individuals in society try to reach
common understanding and to coordinate actions by reasoned argument, consensus,
and cooperation rather than strategic action strictly in pursuit of specific goals
everyday ordinary conversation between the members of a society is clearly
distinguished from ‘strategic actions’ in the political system, like formal discussions
or rule based rational debates for achieving specific goals. Thus, well informed
engaged citizens who discuss political and civic matters contribute to the effective
working of the government.
Researchers and political theorist are divided on the issue what they term
political conversation; for some it only means formal, strategic talk as done in
legislative assemblies or other organizational forums following certain rules and
regulations (Mutz, 2006; Eliasoph, 1998; Schudson, 1997); while for others every
informal conversations among people discussing something like news report relating
to government etc. is also a political talk (Wyatt, et al., 2000; Anderson, et al., 1996;
). Talk leads to recruitment: How discussions about politics and current events
increase civic participation, 2007). Despite the differences, all the theorists who
emphasize on the central role of conversation in democracy do not see any difference
between ordinary talk and political conversation.
Political conversation then is the spontaneous casual talk, done voluntarily
between private individuals and does not aim to achieve any predetermine goals.
Connection of ordinary conversation or casual talk to the overall political system
comes from the fact that these conversations serve as a bridge between citizen’s
personal experiences and the political world outside. It is through conversation that
people understand each other and make sense of the world around them. Though
these conversations are done in private spheres of the people but the input i.e.
information, topics, and issues, comes from outside political world and political
system and in turn output goes back to the political system and political world in the
form of public opinion, issue position, voting preference and participatory activities
(Kim, Wyatt, & Katz, 1999).
Considerable amount of research has been done examining the relation

between frequency of political conversation and political participation and
consistently showed the positive association between the both (Katz, et al., 1955; ).
Talk leads to recruitment: How discussions about politics and current events increase
civic participation, 2007; News, Talk, Opinion, Participation: The Part Played by
Conversation in Deliberative Democracy, 1999; Understanding deliberation: The
effects of discussion networks on participation in a public forum, 1999; Information
and expression in a digital age modeling Internet effects on civic participation , 2005)
Political theorists and researchers insist that political conversations have a
positive impact on civil and political participation (Jacobs, Cook, & Carpini, 2009;
McAfee, 2009; Gastil J. , 2007). Theories of public sphere explain that in the
presence of news media the association between conversation and political
participation becomes even stronger because media “unifies and invigorate
conversations” (Jacobs, Cook, & Carpini, 2009; Bartkus & Davis, 2009; Gastil J. ,
2007; Klofstad, 2007; Merritt & McCombs, 2008). Media provides material for
conversation and encourages people to engage in more informed and reasoned
discussions and thus, motivate them for active political participation.
The level of motivation varies, depending upon the socio economic resource
level (SERL) of the individuals. The high SERL group i.e. having high education and
income level behaves differently when comes to active political participation as
compared to those belonging to low SERL group. The high SERL group is expected
to more actively participate in political process order to influence the political
decision affecting people directly or indirectly (Verba, et al., 1987; Schroeder, 2008).
Presently media, especially the television news channels have become the
key channel for communication and citizen’s engagement. The political information
and diverse viewpoints obtained through television news channels initiate political
conversations among the people. Frequent discussions about political and civic issues
of common concern enhance their understanding of the issues, as well as, motivate
them for active political participation. Educated and well off being more resourceful,
financially and intellectually, constitute the major audience of the political
communication on the news channels therefore, considered as strong predictor of
participation. This linear relationship between high socio-economic resource level,
media use, political conversation and opinion formation, and consequently
participation, is substantiated by many researchers. This study aims to verify the
extent of prevalence of the same relationship in Pakistan. Following hypotheses will
be tested in this study:
H1: High SERL group tends to consume greater amount of political programmes
onnews media as compared to the low and middle SERL groups.
H2: High SERL group is more likely to engage in political conversations as
compared tolow and middle SERL groups.
H3: High socio economic resource level (SERL) group of citizens are more likely
to be involved in conventional modes of political participationas compared to
low and middle SERL groups.
Methodology
The survey was conducted among 500 respondents in five cities of Pakistan:
Lahore, Peshawar, Karachi, Rawalpindiand Islamabad. The survey questionnaire was
designed to assess the patterns and amount of news media (TV news channels) use,
conversations, and participation by the respondents. Demographic information about
the respondents included age, gender, education, and family income.
For news media use behavior, three aspects were taken: the frequencies of
television news viewing, talk shows viewing, and channel preference for news
channels.
For mapping the conversational pattern six loci were identified i.e. home,
work place, recreational places, shopping places, religious places, and
telephone/internet. Eight topics of conversation were selected from everyday casual
non-purposive talk goes among individuals. The topics are politics (national and
regional or local political matters including discussing personalities), international
politics (about foreign countries and their affairs), economy and inflation, law and
order (crimes also), personal (related to self, family or job/business), health and
education, religion, and entertainment. ” A set of questions, asking the for the amount
of conversation on the eight identified topics at each loci mentioned above was
included in the questionnaire. These questions made 48 items in total.
For participation eight items were included in the questionnaire as: (i)Written
a letter to the editor, (ii) Called/e-mailed in a TV/ Radio programme, (iii) Contacted
any people’ representative, (iv) Attended a public meeting, (v) Joined a rally or
march, (vi) Been part of a political campaign, (vii) Made a donation, and (viii) Voted
on 18th February, 2008.
SERL scale was constructed from education and family income variables. First,
the education and family income variables were dichotomized: For education, BA and
above were given higher score (=1) and the others including missing cases were given a
lower score (=0); income up to Rs.30,000 were given lower score (=0) and those having
income above 30,000 were given higher score (=1). Consequently, the higher scorers in
education and income were classified as “High SERL”, low scorers in both education
and income as “Low SERL” and the remaining as “Middle SERL”..
Results and Discussion
The questionnaire was given to 500 individuals out of whom 338 responded
positively. From the demographic data obtained, first of all the three SERL groups
were computed. It turned out as follows: the high SERL (N= 35 or 10.4%), “Low
SERL” (N=119 or 35.2 %), and the “Middle SERL” (N= 184 or 54.4 %).
Media use pattern indicates that people of high income and education seem to
be more interested in the political and civic affairs and they prefer to watch news
channels, news bulletins and political talk shows regularly indicating that they keep
themselves updated on the current affairs and are likely to be more informed than rest
of the two groups.
Percentage of Media use among the SERLs
SERL
Media use
Low Middle High
News Channel 50% 58% 80%
News 66.7% 45.9% 34%
Talk Shows 7.4 19.2% 43%
So far our findings support our hypothesis that high SERL group is more
interested in political and civic affairs. The media use pattern of middle SERL group
resembles more closely to that of the low SERL group.
Table 2: Descriptive statistics of media use among the three SERL groups
SERL
Media Use Low Middle High
M SD M SD M SD
TV Hours 1.5 1.0 1.7 1.0 1.9 1.0
News Channel 3.1 1.6 3.5 1.6 4.1 1.4
News Bulletins 3.7 1.7 4.0 1.5 4.4 1.5
Talk Shows 2.3 1.1 2.9 1.3 3.6 1.4
Mean viewing 2.6 1.4 3.0 1.3 3.5 1.4
A very significant difference seen between the high SERL group and the
other two groups is that of talk shows viewing. Low and middle SERL groups do not
appear to be interested in political discussions on television. The comparative view of
the preferences in the television viewing among SERL groups is shown in figure 1.
These findings seem to agree with the behavior of high SERL group mentioned by
Janda, Berry, Goldman, & Hula, 2012.
Figure 1: Graph comparing amount of consumption of news media programmes

of the three SERL groups.
Descriptive statistics of all the eight conversational topics at each loci of
conversations obtained for all the three SERL groups: high, middle, and low provide
an overview of their conversational patterns.
Table 3a: Descriptive statistics of the eight conversational topics at six different
loci among low SERL group
Religious
Conversation Home Work Recreation Shopping Online
places
al Topics
M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD
Politics 0.55 0.62 0.58 0.69 0.28 0.58 0.33 0.58 0.20 0.53 0.25 0.55
Other
countries 0.58 0.59 0.55 0.64 0.32 0.58 0.41 0.62 0.15 0.39 0.14 0.35
Economy/
inflation 1.40 0.71 1.26 0.71 0.93 0.80 0.98 0.80 0.39 0.68 0.77 0.84
Law & Order 1.24 0.71 1.20 0.68 0.88 0.72 0.87 0.77 0.43 0.71 0.70 0.73
Personal 1.11 0.76 0.93 0.72 0.66 0.71 0.61 0.73 0.27 0.56 0.76 0.79
Edu&Health 1.19 0.69 1.08 0.71 0.74 0.77 0.76 0.79 0.29 0.62 0.56 0.72
Religion 1.29 0.65 1.14 0.63 0.85 0.73 0.73 0.75 0.88 0.80 0.70 0.73
Entertainment 0.60 0.66 0.58 0.66 0.47 0.65 0.35 0.58 0.16 0.47 0.30 0.55
For low SERL group work (0.58) and home (0.55) appeared as the places
where most of the talk takes place. The most talked about topics came out to be
inflation (1.40) and religion (1.29) followed by law & order (1.24) and education &
health (1.19). Politics (0.55) and about other countries (0.58) appeared as the least
discussed topics (Table 3a).
Table 3b: Descriptive statistics of the eight conversational topics at six different
loci among middle SERL group
Religious
places
al Topics
Politics 1.05 0.62 0.85 0.74 0.60 0.72 0.54 0.75 0.39 0.63 0.57 0.76
Other
countries 1.06 0.58 0.88 0.67 0.66 0.74 0.65 0.77 0.39 0.64 0.66 0.79
Economy/
inflation 1.48 0.61 1.29 0.67 1.00 0.76 1.19 0.79 0.63 0.79 0.87 0.82
Law & Order 1.54 0.58 1.37 0.70 1.06 0.80 1.05 0.82 0.67 0.78 0.92 0.83
Personal 1.32 0.70 1.07 0.76 0.86 0.77 0.67 0.74 0.45 0.68 0.94 0.83
Edu& Health 1.45 0.63 1.34 0.74 1.07 0.79 0.84 0.80 0.56 0.72 0.82 0.81
Religion 1.34 0.68 1.12 0.71 0.98 0.80 0.67 0.74 0.85 0.87 0.77 0.76
Entertainment 0.95 0.72 0.96 0.74 0.92 0.80 0.55 0.71 0.33 0.63 0.64 0.76
For middle SERL group also home (1.05) and work (0.85) turned out to be
the place of most conversations. As expected, law &order (1.54), inflation (1.48) and
education & health (1.45) followed by religion (1.34) turned out to be the most
discussed topics. Politics (1.05) and entertainment (0.95) appear to be the least
discussed topic (Table 3b).
Table 3c: Descriptive statistics of the eight conversational topics at six different
loci among high SERL group
Religious
places
al Topics
Politics 1.29 0.71 1.08 0.80 1.07 0.75 1.00 0.91 0.61 0.83 0.76 0.74
Other
0.93 0.77 1.08 0.70 0.62 0.68 0.66 0.81 0.36 0.73 1.00 0.89
countries
Economy/
1.66 0.55 1.29 0.86 1.38 0.68 1.32 0.90 0.57 0.69 0.96 0.84
inflation
Law & Order 1.45 0.74 1.56 0.65 1.20 0.81 1.11 0.96 1.00 0.94 0.58 0.76
Personal 1.35 0.69 1.15 0.73 0.83 0.79 0.77 0.82 0.48 0.69 0.67 0.78
Edu& Health 1.37 0.61 1.23 0.65 0.93 0.88 0.66 0.77 0.59 0.73 0.78 0.89
Religion 1.19 0.56 1.15 0.73 0.75 0.75 0.57 0.74 0.93 0.86 0.63 0.88
Entertainment 1.00 0.72 1.00 0.82 1.07 0.84 0.83 0.85 0.62 0.86 0.56 0.75
Same pattern of loci was observed among high SERL group. Home (1.29)
and work place (1.08) are the places where most of the talk takes place.
Inflation/economy (1.66) and law & order (1.45) followed by politics (1.37) turned
out to be the most discussed topics. Entertainment (1.00) and other countries (0.93)
seem to be the least discussed topics (Table 3c).
For quick comparative view of the proportion of the amount of the
conversations on the eight topics among the SERL groups are shown in figures 2a,
2b, and 2c.
Figure 2a: Amount of conversation on the eight topics at six different loci by low
SERLgroup
Figure 2b: Amount of conversation on the eight topics at six different loci by
middle SERL group
Figure 2c: Amount of conversation on the eight topics at six different loci by
high SERL group
From the graphs it becomes quite obvious that high SERL group is most
engaged in conversations overall. It is seen that amount of conversation specifically
on politics is highest among high SERL group. The conversational pattern indicates
that the low and middle SERL groups are more concerned with law & order and
inflation. After these two topics they talk about religion. They seem to be least
bothered with politics. High SERL group seems to be equally concerned about the
both issues, but instead of religion they talk about politics; religion comes in the less
discussed topics. It appears that low and middle SERL groups when discuss issues
like inflation and law & order they talk about religion. It suggests that they tend to
look towards God for the solution to their problems and do not seem to comprehend
politics as an instrument to solve their problems. It is quite encouraging that high
SERL group i.e. individuals having high education realize the relation between
problems and politics. It appears that they are aware of the link between
government’s policies and public woes. The conversational pattern of high SERL
supports our hypothesis as well as, goes well with the arguments posited by various
deliberative theorists like Cook, Carpini, & Jacobs; Bennett & Entman; to name few
of them. Keith’s observations in relation to the broadcast media that, better informed
people more likely to indulge in political conversations is similar to our findings
(Keith, 2010).
Table 4 - Descriptive statistics of participatory activities of the three SERL groups

SERL
Modes of Participation
Low% Middle % High %
Written a letter to a newspaper, magazine, or TV 11 14 20
program
Called in a radio or TV talk show 14.7 8 20
Written, called, or otherwise contacted a people’s 15.4 11.6 3.3
representative
Attended a public meeting 24.3 24.4 23.3
Taken part in public protest rally or march 19.9 26.2 26.7
Been part of a political campaign 11.8 18.0 10.0
Donated money to any political party or organization 9.6 19.2 13.3
Voted in general elections 39.0 30.8 63.3
Mean Participation 1.46 1.52 1.80
Standard Deviation 2.10 1.52 1.73
Participation the ultimate determinant of the effective democratic system was
examined among the three SERL groups. It turned out that 63.3% of the high SERL
group appeared for voting, as compared to the 30.8% of middle, and 39 % of low
SERL groups. High SERL group’s participation profile shows that 20% of them are
involved in writing letters to the editors and calling in the TV/ Radio show.
Participation in public meetings and rallies/march is encouraging 23.3% and 26.7%,
almost equal to those of low and middle SERL groups. They appear to donate less
only 13.3%
Figure 5-Graph comparing the participatory activities of the three SERL groups
The mean participation shows that high SERL group is the most active
political participant. To examine the nature of participation factor analysis was
performed. By principle component analysis factors were extracted. Two factors
each for low and middle SERL groups were obtained. In both of the cases first factor
included all the participatory activities and voting was shown in the second factor.
This does not explain much except that voting is considered a different form of
participation as compared to all other ways.
For high SERL group three factors were extracted. The factors indicate three
levels of involvement in participatory activities and they were identified as Passive
participation, Active participation, and Proactive participation. The passive
participation includes writing letters to the editor, calling in TV/Radio, attend public
meetings, join rally, and vote in elections.
All these activities can be done leisurely without have to take responsibility
or being becoming too prominent. These activities can be done remaining
anonymous. This kind of participation indicates psychological involvement. Active
participation– making donations for political purposes and being a part of political
campaign, refers to initiative taken for participation by investing time and money and
to a certain degree commitment.
Table 5: Direct Oblimin Rotated Pattern Matrix of the Participation Variables
and Correlation Coefficients among the Factors
Participatory Factors
Modes of Participation
Passive Active Proactive
Written letter to editor .753 -.421 .037
Called in TV/Radio .682 -.457 .121
Public meeting .805 .313 -.261
Rally/march .729 .439 -.235
Vote .424 -.496 -.284
Joined Pol. Campaign .445 .525 .332
Donation .187 .811 .392
Contacted official/rep. .231 -.510 .739
% of Variance 33.47 26.44 12.88
Eigen Value 2.67 2.11 1.03
The proactive participation i.e., contacting official or people’s representative,
is most significant. It refers to a deeper sense of civic responsibility and greater
initiative to exercise power over government for the sake of solving public problems.
The pro-active participation is suggestive of higher level of political efficacy and
awareness of the political system.
The descriptive statistics of the three kinds of participations shows that the
passive type of participation is highest among the high SERL group (1.53) and lowest
among the middle SERL group (1.04), closer to middle SERL group (1.10). Active
participation is higher among middle SERL (0.37) followed by high SERL (0.23) and
nearly equal among low SERL (0.20). The most imperative type, the pro active
participation is visible among the low SERL (0.16), to lesser amount in middle SERL
(0.12) but quite low among high SERL quite contrary to what expected in the light of
socio economic status model of participation (Janda, Berry, Goldman, & Hula, 2009).
Table 6: Mean participation of the three SERL groups regarding three kinds of
participation
Participation
SERL
Passive Active Pro Active
M SD M SD M SD
Low 1.10 1.47 0.20 0.55 0.16 0.37
Middle 1.04 1.22 0.37 0.66 0.12 0.32
High 1.53 1.53 0.23 0.57 0.03 0.18
In the context of Pakistani society, the pro active participation, which refers
to contacting officials or representatives, among low and middle SERL groups might
mean contacting for seeking favor in routine matters and not necessarily influencing
political decisions or policies, but among high SERL group this might be taken as for
influencing governmental decisions or policies. This suggests that high SERL group
does not tend to involve pro actively political participation. However, it evident from
the empirical data that people in general are not inclined towards political
participation, or interested in politics except for the small segment of high SERL
group which constitutes only 10% of the total population. This behavior seems to
support video malaise theory, according to which too much television viewing,
especially the political programming, alienate people from political participation
(Norris, 2010). For better understanding of the pattern of participation mean paired
difference test was conducted. The results are summarized in Table 6.
Table 7 - Paired mean difference between the three types of participation among
the SERL groups
Participation
SERL
Passive – Active Passive – Pro Active Active – Pro Active
t df T df t Df
Low 8.429* 131 8.494* 131 1.096 131
Middle 9.069* 170 11.101* 170 6.045* 170
High 4.573* 29 5.467* 29 1.795 29

No significant difference was found in the level of active and pro active kind
of participation among the low and high SERL. Overall the participation pattern of all
the three SERL groups appears to be nearly the same i.e. more passive or non-
committed one.
The high SERL group appeared most vigorous participant as voter reaching
the limit of 80%. To get the idea how all the groups participate by opting ways other
than voting the participation pattern was examined without including voting option.
One way ANOVA was used to get the comparison between the three levels. The
findings revealed that there no significant difference between the level of
participation between the three groups, however, high SERL group shows a slightly
but insignificant increased level of participation even without voting. It is quite
contrary to the findings of Junda and his colleagues claiming that high SERL group is
likely to be the major participant group. One of the explanations of low political
participation or no participate at all could be the lack of basic knowledge of politics
and lack of necessary skills required to utilize the available means of participation as
pointed out by Utter, especially among the low and middle SERL groups. (Utter,
2010). Our findings with respect to participation do not fit well with the observed
behavior in the western societies as observed by many deliberative democracy
proponents like Gutman, Dahlgreen and Kim to name a few might be due to poorly
developed public sphere, a space where people come together and exchange ideas and
information without coercion and on their own free will open to all without any kind
of distinction. Public sphere lies between public and private spheres, not owned by
government. It is not a physical space rather it is a happening came about by people’s
interaction (Habermas J. , 1991). Television channels are trying to create that public
sphere but yet it is in its formative phases. Still television news channels are engaging
people in political discussions and motivating them for participation.
Table 8: One way ANOVA for comparing level of Participation excluding Voting option
Participation Level M SD F-value p-value
Low SERL 0.71 1.27 0.299 0.742
Middle SERL 0.73 1.08
High SERL 0.90 1.29
Conclusion
It is therefore, concluded that media has not yet been able to convince people
that politics is relevant to their everyday practical lives. Low and middle SERL group
seems to have no idea how politics can cause or relieve their problems. They tend to
find recluse in religion. Whereas, high SERL group who appear to understand the link
between politics and its effect on their lives are yet not prepared to take a pro-active
role and participate in political process to influence it the better interest of masses.
Political intolerant culture and tradition of vengeance and victimization might be one
of the reasons. Improvement in education system is required to develop democratic
attitudes among the people. Moreover, media content, which is more discussed with
entertainment among low and high SERL groups, need to be improved to raise
political consciousness among ordinary citizens and impressing upon the relevance of
politics to them. This requires competent and well trained media personnel.
References
Ackerman, B., & Fishkin, J. (2005). Deliberation Day. Yale University Press.
Anderson, R., Dardenne, R., & Killenberg, G. M. (1996). The conversation of
journalism: communication, community, and news. Greenwood Publishing
Group.
Axford, B., & Browning, G. K. (2002). Politics: an introduction. Routledge, Francis
and Taylor.
Bartkus, V. O., & Davis, J. A. (2009). Social capital: reaching out, reaching in.
Edward Elgar Publishing.
Bennett, R. W. (2003). Talking it through: puzzles of American democracy. Cornell
University Press.
Bennett, W. L., & Entman, R. M. (2001). Mediated Politics: Communication in the
Future of Democracy. Cambridge University Press.
Box, R. C. (2007). Democracy and public administration. M.E. Sharpe, Inc.
Button, M., & Mattson, K. (1999). Deliberative Democracy in Practice: Challenges
ans Prospects for Civic Deliberations. Polity .
Conover, P. J., Searing, D. D., & Crewe, I. M. (2000). The deliberative potencial of
political discussion. British journal of political science , 32, 21-62.
Cook, F. L., Carpini, M. X., & Jacobs, L. R. (2007). Who Deliberates? Discursive
Participation in America. In S. Rosenberg, Can the People Govern? Theory
and Empirical Research on Democratic. MacMillan.
Dahlgreen, P. (2002). In Search of Talkative Public: Media, Deliberative Democracy
and Civic Culture. Javnost-The Public, 9 (3), 5-26.
Dahlgreen, P., & Sparks, C. (1991). Communication and Citizenship: Journalism and
the Public Sphere. Routledge.
Dewey, J. (1997). How We Think. NY: Dover Publications.
Downs, A. (1957). An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.
Eliasoph, N. (1998). Avoiding Politics: How Americans Produce Apathy in Everyday
Life. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Eveland, W. P., Morey, J. C., & Hively, M. H. (2009). Beyond deliberation: New
directions for the study of informal political conversation from a
communication perspectives. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication . MA,
Boston.
Fishkin, J. S. (1995). The voice of the people: Public opinion and democracy. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Flores, A. (2005). Local democracy in modern Mexico: a study in participatory
methods. Arena Books.
Gastil, J. (2007). Political communication and deliberation. Sage Publications.
Gastil, J. (2007). Political Communication and Deliberation. Sage Publications.
Gastil, J., & Dillard, J. P. (1999). Increasing political sophistication through public
deliberation. Political Communication , 16 (1), 3-23.
Gutman, A., & Thompson, D. F. (2004). Why Deliberative Democracy. Princeton
University Press.
Habermas. (1992). Further Reflections on the Public Sphere. In C. J. Calhoun,
Habermas and the Public Sphere.
Habermas, J. (1991). The Public Sphere. In C. Mukerji, & M. Schudson, Rethinking
Popular Culture (p. 398). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Reason and the
rationalization of society, Vol 1. Boston: Beacon Press.
Harber, C. (1997). Education, democracy, and political development in Africa.
Sussex Academic Press.
Huber, J., & Harkavy, I. (2007). Higher education and democratic culture:
citizenship, human rights and civic responsibility. Strasbourg Cedex: Council
of Europe Publishing.
Huckfeldt, R., & Sprague, J. (1991). Discussant effects on vote choice: intimacy,
structure, and interdependence. Journal of Politics , 53, 122-160.
Huckfeldt, R., & Sprague, J. (1987). Networks in context: The social flow of political
information. American Political Science Review , 81, 1197-1216.
Inkeles, A. a. (1974). Becoming Modern. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Jacobs, L. R., Cook, F. L., & Carpini, M. X. (2009). Talking Together: Public
Deliberation and Political Participation in America. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Janda, K., Berry, J. M., Goldman, J., & Hula, K. W. (2012). The Challenge of
Democracy: American Government in a Global World, Brief Edition. Boston:
Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Jenlink, P. M. (2009). Dewey's Democracy and education revisited: contemporary
discourses for democratic education and leadership. Maryland, America:
Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Katz, E., Lazarsfeld, P., & . (1955). Personal influence. New York: The Free Press.
Keith, M. C. (2010). The Radio Station: Broadcast, Satellite and Internet. USA:
Focal Press.
Kim, J., Wyatt, R. O., & Katz, E. (1999). News, Talk, Opinion, Participation: The
Part Played by Conversation in Deliberative Democracy. Political
Communication , 361-385.
Kim, S. (2008). Voluntary associations, social inequality, and participatory
democracy from a comparative perspective. University of Chicago Press.
Klofstad, C. A. (2007). ). Talk leads to recruitment: How discussions about politics
and current events increase civic participation. Political Research Quarterly ,
60, 180-191.
McAfee, N. (2009). Democracy and the political unconscious. C olumbia University
press.
McClurg, S. D. (2003). Social networks and political participation: The role of social
interaction in explaining political participation. Political Research Quarterly
, 56, 448-464.
McLeod, J. M., Moy, P. H., E. M., H., R. L., Z. W., & al, e. (1999). Understanding
deliberation: The effects of discussion networks on participation in a public
forum. Communication Research , 26, 743-774.
Merritt, D., & McCombs, M. E. (2008). The two W's of journalism: the why and what
of public affairs reporting. Taylor & Francis e-Library.
Norris, P. (2010). Democratic Deficit: Critical citizens revisited. Cambridge
University Press.
Perrin, A. J. (2006). Citizen speak: the democratic imagination in American life.

University of Chicago Press.
Rojas, H. (2008). Strategy versus understanding: How orientations toward political
conversation influence political engagement. Communication Research , 35,
452-480.
Rojas, H., Shah, D. V., J., C., M., S., Keum, H., & Gil de Zúñiga, H. (2005). Media
dialogue: Percieving and addressing community problems. Mass
Communication and Society , 8, 93-110.
Sargent, L. T. (2008). Contemporary Political Ideologies: A Comparative Analysis.
Cengage Learning.
Schroeder, M. B. (2008). Economic inequality, economic segregation, and political
participation. The Pennsylvania State University.
Schudson, M. (1997). Why Conversation is not the Soul of Democracy. Critical
Studies in Mass Communication, 14, 297-309.
Shah, D. V., Cho, J., Eveland, W. P., & Kwak, N. (2005). Information and expression
in a digital age modeling Internet effects on civic participation .
Communication Research , 32, 531-565.
Tarde, G. (1989; originally published in 1899). "L' Opinion et la Conversation"
[Opinion and Conversation, J. Ruth, Trans.]. Paris: University of France,
Press.
Tarde, G. (1898). Opinion and Conversation (Translation). L' Opinion et La Foule .
Utter, G. H. (2010). Youth and Political Participation: A Reference Handbook. ABC-
CLIO.
Verba, S., Nie, N. H., & Kim, J. O. (1987). Participation and political equality: a
seven-nation comparison. University of Chicago Press.
Vorhölter, J. (2010). Towards a culture of participation? Berlin, Germany: LIT
Verlag Münster.
Wong, J. (2006). Democracy's promise: immigrants & American civic institutions.
University of Michigan Press.
Wyatt, R. O., Katz, E., & Kim, J. (2000). Bridging the Spheres: Political and Personal
Conversation in Public and Private Spaces. Scholarly Commons . University
of Pennsylvania.
Youth Partnership (Organization), E. C. (2009). European citizenship--in the process

of construction: challenges for citizenship. Jouve, Paris: Council of Europe.
Bulletin of Education and Research
December 2014, Vol. 36, No. 2 pp. 69-84
Approaches to Learning, Perceptions of Educational

Environment, Academic Motivation and Learning Preferences:
Analysis of Two Universities in Pakistan
Raza Ullah*, Ifra Iftikhar** and Bushra Yasmeen***
_______________________________________________________________
Abstract
This study investigated the students‟ perceptions of the educational environment, approaches
to learning, academic motivation and learning preferences at two universities in Lahore.
Multistage random sampling procedure was used to draw samples from the two universities.
The total sample consisted of 912 students; 570 students from one university and 342 from the
second university. The Course Experience Questionnaire (CEQ; Wilson et al., 1997) was used
to measure the students‟ perceptions of the educational environment. Approaches to Learning
and Studying Inventory (ALSI; Entwistle, McCune, and Hounsell, 2003) was used to measure
the students‟ approaches to learning. The students at the two universities perceived their
educational environment more positively in terms of generic skills that they had acquired
during the course of study (critical thinking, communication skills etc.) than in terms of
instructional practices, workload, assessment and learning resources. They showed greater
preference for the educational environment that supports understanding than the educational
environment that supports transmission of information. They tended to use all the four
approaches to learning (deep, surface, organized and monitoring studying). According to the
results of Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA), the students at the two universities
differed in their perceptions of the educational environment, academic motivation and
approaches to learning.
Keywords: students‟ perceptions of educational environment, approaches to learning,

academic motivation, learning preferences
*
* Assistant Professor, University of the Punjab, Lahore. Email: razaullah01@gmail.com
** University of the Punjab, Lahore.
***University of the Punjab, Lahore. Email: bushrayasmeen@gmail.com
Learning, Perceptions of Educational Environment, Academic Motivation and Learning Preferences 70
Introduction
The study investigates the students‟ learning experiences at the two
universities in Lahore. In the following sections of the paper, students‟ approaches to
learning, their perceptions of the learning environment, academic motivation and
learning preferences have been described, followed by the methods, analysis of the
data, results, discussion on the results and the conclusion.
Approaches to learning
Approaches to learning are the ways of learning, such as the deep approach to
learning is characterized by attempts to understand the meaning of the learning
material, and the surface approach, on the other hand, is characterized by attempts to
memorize the text (Marton and Sӓ ljö, 1976). Another approach to learning is
strategic approach which is characterized by attempts to obtain the highest grades
(Ramsden, 1979). According to Richardson (1994), the deep and the surface
approaches to learning are found in all the systems of education.
The approaches to learning are the students‟ reactions to the learning

environment (Biggs, 1999, p. 30). The same student may use different approaches to
studying in different course units depending upon the demands of the courses, and
different students may use different approaches in the same course unit depending
upon their perceptions of the course (Richardson, 2009, p. 13). The way students
learn seems to depend on the context, content and perceived demands of the learning
tasks (Richardson, 2000, p. 32).
Literature shows that quality of learning is associated with approaches to

study (Biggs, 1979; Haggis, 2003; Prosser, Ramsden, Trigwell, & Martin 2003;
Ramsden, 1992); the deep approach is associated with better quality learning and the
surface approach is associated with poor quality learning outcomes (Biggs, 1979;
Ramsden, 1992, p. 53). The deep approach promotes thinking, critical analysis,
understanding and ability to apply knowledge, and the surface approach has nothing
to do with such things. The deep approach involves higher order cognitive processes
than the surface approach. In case of the deep approach the student attempts to
understand key concepts and to relate new knowledge to personal experience and
previous knowledge (Kember, Leung and Mcnaought, 2008).
Raza, Ifra and Yasmeen 71
Table 1.1: Defining features of three approaches to learning
Deep approach
Intention to understand
Vigorous interaction with content
Relate new ideas to previous knowledge
Relate concepts to everyday experience
Relate evidence to conclusions
Examine the logic of the argument
Surface Approach
Intention to complete task requirements

Memorize information needed for assessments
Failure to distinguish principles from examples
Treat task as an external imposition
Focus on discrete elements without integration
Unreflectiveness about purpose or strategies
Strategic approach
Intention to obtain highest possible grades

Organize time and distribute efforts to greatest effect
Ensure conditions and materials for studying appropriate
Use previous exam papers to predict questions
†
Be alert to cues about marking schemes
Educational Environment
Curriculum, teaching, assessment, student-faculty interaction and institutional
climate (rules and procedures) are main components of a learning environment
(Biggs, 1999, p. 25). Learning environments may vary in their characteristics. They
may differ with regard to teaching practices, student-teacher interaction, students‟
participation, assessment and a number of other variables. Some learning
environments may be meaning oriented (that emphasize understanding), while other
may be reproduction oriented (that emphasize memorization). Similarly, different
aspects of the same environment may have different impact on students‟ approaches
Source: Richardson (2000, p. 28), adapted from Entwistle (1987)

to learning. For instance, teaching practices may encourage conceptual understanding

while assessment may reward rote learning. Learning environments that are
reproduction oriented and have little incentives for the students to actively participate
in the learning process, promote rote learning (Wierstra, Kanselaar, Linden,
Lodewijks, & Vermunt, 2003).
The learning environment may be student-centred or teacher-centred. The

teacher-centred learning environment focuses on teaching and the student centred
environment focuses on learning. In teacher-centred learning environment efforts are
directed toward improving the teaching skills of the teachers to make the teaching
more effective. Such an environment is not characterized by active involvement of
the students and lecturing is a predominant mode of instruction in this environment.
There is not very much interaction among the students and between the teacher and
the students. It lacks debate and discussion in the classes and teaching learning
process is unidirectional and dominated by the teacher. The teacher does not act as
facilitator but as a dispenser of knowledge. The teacher focuses on transmission of
knowledge to the students. The teachers who use teacher-focused strategy tend to
encourage surface approach among their students (Trigwell and Prossor (1996).
The student-centred learning environment is characterized by active

participation of the students in the learning process. Knowledge is not transmitted
from teacher to students like the teacher centred learning environment but it is created
through debate, discussions and teaching learning activities. “By providing safe
spaces in which students are accepted and respected, and in which uninformed,
ambiguous, non-rational, illogical, unclear ideas, expressions and play are welcomed
and listened to, we can nurture creativity, the desire to learn…” (Mann, 2001, p.17).
Constructive learning is associated with conceptual-oriented and student-oriented
environment; whereas, reproductive learning is associated with reproduction-oriented
and teacher-oriented learning environment (Wierstra, Kanselaar, Linden, Lodewijks,
& Vermunt, 2003). Ramsden (1998) argues that teachers can enhance the students‟
learning by creating student-centred environment where they have opportunities to be
actively engaged with the learning tasks. “Institutions of higher education have a
responsibility to create learning environments that promote deep level learning. To
what extent this actually happens depends…on individual instructors...structure of the
programme and culture of the department (Kreber, 2003, p. 59).
Higher Education in Pakistan

There was only one university (University of the Punjab) at the time of
independence (August 14, 1947); it was established by the British in 1882. Now,
there are 45 public sector universities and 29 private sector universities (Isani and
Virk, 2003, p. 163).
Although, number of institutions increased rapidly since independence;

however, the student participation remained low. Only 2.6 percent students between
the age of 17 and 23 were in higher education (Isani and Virk, 2003, p. 173).
According to Akbri and Naqvi (2008), participation rate has risen to 5 per cent which
is still low compared to other developing countries; India has 12 per cent participation
rate. Maximum age limit for entry into higher education in Pakistan is 26 years (Isani
and Virk, 2003, p. 180).
Higher education in Pakistan has received special attention in recent years.

Higher education‟s share in total education budget rose from 7 per cent, before 2002
to 13.7 percent in 2005-06 which resulted into 100 per cent increase in student
enrolment in higher education (Akbri and Naqvi, 2008). Higher education institutions
are opening in both public and private sectors. Higher Education Commission of
Pakistan is funding PhD studies at higher educational institutions in Pakistan and
abroad; it has also hired foreign faculty to supervise PhD students and to promote
research culture at the universities. It has also reemployed the retired professors and
placed them at the universities.
Higher educational institutions in Pakistan work in both public and private

sectors. They can be further categorized into general and professional institutions.
Almost all the universities except Allama Iqbal Open University, Islamabad (which is
a distant learning university) provide campus-based learning and run full-time
educational programmes. Professional institutions of higher education offer courses
in engineering, medical, agriculture, management etc. Higher education is also
offered by the institutions (public and private colleges) which are affiliated with the
public universities. These affiliated colleges generally offer two-year B.A./B.Sc. and
in some cases, M.A./M.Sc. programmes; however, examination and degree awarding
functions rest with the universities with which they are affiliated. Most of the public
universities have hostels to provide accommodation to the students who are from
distant areas; the students, who cannot get accommodation in the hostels, arrange
their accommodation privately, outside the campus.
Admission to universities and other institutions of higher education (both

professional and general) is generally granted on the basis of marks obtained by the
students in examinations (higher secondary school examination or B.A./B.Sc./B.Com.
examination in case of admission to master‟s programmes) plus their performance in
the entry test. The higher secondary school certificate is a minimum requirement for
entry into the institutions of higher education in Pakistan. There is greater
competition among students for admission to professional courses (engineering,
medical, agriculture, management) than admission to general education. In the same
university, there is more competition for admission to the courses which have greater
demand in the employment market than the courses which have lesser demand.
Admissions to the universities take place once in a year, generally, in July, August
and September. Students in the public universities pay nominal fees; however,
recently, most of the public universities have started a scheme of education on self
finance basis, generally for the students who cannot fully meet the requirement of
admission or marginally miss the conditions of merit. The self finance scheme has
contributed to the revenue of the universities.
Generally, universities in Pakistan offer four-year B.A./B.Sc. honours,

two-year M.A./M.Sc., two-year MPhil/MS and five-year PhD programmes. Diploma
courses are also offered at certain departments of the universities. In general
universities, some departments offer both four-year B.A./B.Sc. honours and two-year
M.A./M.Sc. The two-year M.A./M.Sc. is generally for those students who have two-
year B.A./B.Sc. pass degree; that is generally offered at the affiliated colleges. The
students who have four-year B.A./B.Sc. honours degree, need not to do two-year
M.A./M.Sc. in those departments because both M.A./M.Sc. and B.A./B.Sc. honours
degrees require sixteen years education. So, B.A./B.Sc. honours is considered
equivalent to M.A./M.Sc. and both the degrees make the candidates eligible for
admission to MS/MPhil and PhD. The engineering and agricultural universities
generally offer four-year bachelor‟s degree and two-year master‟s degree. The
medical colleges or medical universities offer five-year bachelor‟s degree. LLB
degree takes three years to complete after two-years BA/BSc, and LLM is a two-year
course after LLB.
Most of the departments in most of the universities have semester system for
examination, and there are two semesters in an academic year. There is a written
examination at the end of each semester along with assignments, presentations etc.,
during the semester. Contribution of the written examination is greater than
assignments, presentations and other things, in determining CGPA. The CGPA is
very important for the students for admissions to educational institutions and for
obtaining good employment. Many students use help-books and notes to prepare for
the examination; the help books contain ready-made answers to the questions that
appear frequently in the examination. These help-books and the notes are prepared
specifically for the examination; the use of help-books and the notes prevent the
students from reading books and other material. Teachers of the colleges offer tuition
(before or after the school hours), on payment, at home or at the tuition academies to
prepare the students for the examination to obtain good marks. Siddiqui (2007, pp.
187-188) argues that assessment practices has tremendous influence on education in
Pakistan. He maintains that philosophy underlying assessment system in Pakistan, is
based on behaviourist model (learning is imitation and repetition); guiding paradigm
considers knowledge as something out there to be memorized. According to him,
existing assessment system in Pakistan requires good memory instead of critical
thinking and application, and the students who possess it can get good grades by
cramming the material.
Isani and Virk (2003) argue that there needs to be an interaction between
universities, industry and R&D organizations for the development of science and
technology in Pakistan (p.226). They maintain that curricula in higher education are
outdated and not relevant to the real life issues and the world of work (p.226).
Siddiqui (2007, p. 97) argues that curriculum in Pakistani educational system is
characterized by non-relevance with real life, out datedness, fixity and lack of regular
revision. He maintains that the term „curriculum‟ in Pakistan needs to be
reconceptualized; it is viewed by decision makers as content to be covered in a
stipulated time. According to Isani and Virk (2003), higher education in Pakistan is
not up to international standards, and universities are not geared to create new
knowledge (p. 231). Higher educational institutions lack support services such as
laboratories, field equipment, and libraries (p. 233). They further argue that one of
factors that affect quality of education is short duration of degree programme; first
degree is awarded after 14 years of education, it is awarded after 16 years of
education in most of other countries.
Method
Population of study
The study was conducted with students who were enrolled in honours or
master‟s degree programmes at two public sector universities in Lahore. If a
department was running both the honours and the master‟s degree programmes then
the students who were in honours degree programmes were included in the
population; however, the students in master‟s programmes were included if the

department did not offer the honours programme. The population included both the
male and the female students in all the years of the educational programmes offered
in the morning and afternoon/evening.
Sampling
Multistage sampling procedure was used to draw samples from two clusters
(two universities) of the population. The samples were conducted separately at the
two universities. At the first stage, all the departments of each university (which
offered honours programmes or master‟s programmes or offered both honours and
master‟s programmes) were divided into four categories of disciplines: social
sciences, science and technology, humanities and management sciences. At the
second stage, sampling frames were formed at the each sampled department at both
the universities. Then samples of the students were drawn from the sampling frames
prepared at the sampled departments by taking into account the year of study and
timing of the educational degree programme. The total sample consisted of 912
students from 22 departments in the four subject areas at the two universities. In total,
there were 494 males and 418 females aged between 17 and 27 with a mean age of
20.53 years.
Instruments
The questionnaire consisted of five parts. Part A was based on the 36-item
Course Experience Questionnaire (CEQ; Wilson, Lizzio, & Ramsden, 1997) and was
used (after minor changes to make it suitable for use in Pakistani context) to measure
the students‟ perceptions of their learning environment. Based on a factor analysis of
the students‟ responses to this part of the questionnaire, Ullah et al. (2011) defined
four scales: Instructional Practices (containing 13 items), Appropriate Workload (4
items), Generic Skills (12 items) and Appropriate Assessment (3 items).
Part B of the questionnaire contained one item on learning resources, two
items on student support (McInnis, Griffin, James & Coates (2001) and two new
items concerned with physical space and computing resources. This part was entitled
„Physical Environment and Learning Resources‟. Part C was based on an instrument
that had been devised by Entwistle, Tait, and McCune (2000) to measure the
students‟ preferences for different types of course and teaching but included three
additional items concerned with preferences for different types of assessment. Part D
consisted of seven new items intended to measure students‟ level of motivation. Part
E was based on Entwistle, McCune, and Hounsell‟s (2003) Approaches to Learning
and Studying Inventory (ALSI).
Procedure
The questionnaire consisted of five parts A-E. All the items in each part of
the questionnaire were followed by five answer categories, from definitely agree to
definitely disagree. The questionnaires were administered to the students during their
classes. Attempts were made to contact absent students through the teachers or their
classmates. If a student was not contactable then he was replaced with another student
from the same class, gender and year of study.
Data analysis
Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was carried out to compare the
students‟ score, at the two universities, with regard to the 13 factor-based scales,
identified in factor analysis of the students‟ responses to the items in five parts of the
questionnaire (reported; Ullah et al., 2011). The names of the universities were not
identified with regard to the results because authorities at one university were not
willing to disclose the names of the universities. They allowed the researcher to
collect the information on the condition that the names of the universities will not be
identified in the results. The MANOVA showed that there were statistically
significant differences in the students‟ scores with regard to university
F(13,887)=9.372, p = 0.000. Univariate tests revealed that the students of the two
universities were significantly different in their scores on the instructional practices
(F = 16.417; d.f. 1, 899; p < 0.000), appropriate workload (F = 5.758; d.f. = 1, 899;
p < 0.017), generic skills (F = 15.011; d.f. = 1,899; p < 0.000), learning resources
(F = 54.778; d.f. = 1,899; p < 0.000), engagement (F = 16.897; d.f. = 1, 899;
p = < 0.000, reliability (F 30.950; d.f. = 1,899; p < 0.000, deep approach (F = 52.913;
d.f. = 1, 899; p = 0.000 and monitoring studying (F = 8.705; d.f. = 1, 899;
p = < 0.003. Since the sample size was large, small differences may appear
statistically significant therefore eta squared was computed to see the effect size.
According to the values of the eta square, there were small differences in the scores
of the students at the two universities on the scales of instructional practices,
appropriate workload, generic skills, engagement, reliability and monitoring studying
and moderate differences on the scales of learning resources and deep approach. The
table 1 below shows adjusted mean scores of the students of the two institutions on
the 13 scales. Examination of the students‟ mean scores on the scales revealed that
the students in the public sector university II achieved slightly higher mean scores
than the students in the public sector I on instructional practices, generic skills,
learning resources, engagement, reliability, deep approach, organized studying and
monitoring studying. The students in the public sector university I achieved slightly
higher mean scores than the students in the public sector university II on the
appropriate workload scale. However, the students of the two institutions obtained
similar mean scores on appropriate assessment, supporting understanding,
transmitting information and the surface learning strategy.
Table 1: Mean Scores (and Standard Errors) by University

Scale Public sector Public sector Eta
University I University II Squared
Mean Std. Mean Std.
Error Error
Instructional Practices 2.500 .045 2.772 .068 0.012**
Appropriate Workload 2.832 .048 2.661 .072 0.009*
Generic Skills 3.277 .038 3.495 .057 0.017***
Appropriate Assessment 2.695 .046 2.630 .070 0.000
Resources 2.739 .051 3.298 .077 0.052***
Support Understanding 4.010 .034 4.043 .052 0.000
Support Transmission 3.559 .046 3.543 .070 0.000
Engagement 2.733 .056 3.074 .084 0.013**
Reliability 3.700 .051 4.123 .077 0.033***
Deep Approach 2.980 .049 3.512 .074 0.043***
Organized Studying 3.349 .049 3.488 .075 0.005*
Surface Approach 3.014 .048 2.984 .072 0.001
Monitoring Studying 3.665 .045 3.862 .068 0.008**
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001
Discussion
The results of this study are consistent with the theory and the previous
research. The same student may use different approaches to studying in different
course units depending upon their perceptions of the demands of the courses.
Similarly, different students may use different approaches in the same course unit
depending upon their perceptions of the course (Richardson, 2009, p. 13). Hence,
students‟ perceptions of the courses (educational context) mediate between the
educational context and their learning strategies.
According to the results of this study, the students at the two universities
differed with regard to the instructional practices, appropriate workload, generic
skills, learning resources, engagement, reliability, deep approach and monitoring
studying.
The students in the two higher educational institutions did not differ in their
perceptions of the learning environment in terms of the appropriate assessment. They
also did not differ in their learning preferences and the use of surface learning
strategy.
The way students learn seems to depend on the context, content and
perceived demands of the learning tasks (Richardson, 2000, p. 32). Teachers and
students may perceive the same learning environment differently. Administrators and
the teachers might have designed the learning environment to promote desirable
approaches to study but the students may have different perceptions of it. Different
students may also perceive the same learning environment differently (Richardson,
2003, P. 13). Additionally, a substantial body of research suggests that approaches to
study are associated with perceptions of educational environment; positive
perceptions are associated with the deep approaches and the negative perceptions are
associated with the surface approaches (Eley, 1992; Kreber, (2003; Lawless and
Richardson, 2002; Richardson, 2003; Richardson, 2005; Richardson, 2009;
Richardson, Dawson, Sadlo, Jenkins, & Maccines, 2007; Richardson, Gamborg and
Hammerberg, 2005; Richardson and Price, 2003; Sadlo and Richardson, 2003;
Trigwell and Prosser, 1991; Ullah et al. 2011, 2013; Wilson, Lizzio & Ramsden,
1997).
Conclusion
The study explored the students‟ perceptions of the educational environment,
their learning strategies, academic motivation and learning preferences at the two
universities. The results of the study are consistent with the existing literature
according to which students‟ perceptions of the learning environment and their
approaches to learning vary across institutions and subjects. The students respond to
the perceived requirement of the academic context. The students at the two
universities differed in the perceptions of the educational environment, academic
motivation and approaches to learning. However, they did not differ with regard to
their learning preferences. On the whole, the students at both the universities
evaluated their learning environment more favourably in terms of generic skills
(that they acquired during the course of study) than in terms of instructional practices,
assessment, workload and learning resources. They preferred the learning
environment that supports understanding more than the learning environment that
supports transmission of information. They tended to adopt all the approaches to
learning: the deep approach, the strategic approach, the monitoring studying and the
surface approach to learning. There are differences in the students‟ perceptions of the
learning environment, learning preferences, approaches to studying and academic

motivation, despite the fact that the students were studying in four similar disciplines
at the two public sector universities that had similar curricula. Therefore the results of
this study can be generalized only to the two universities in Lahore.
On the basis of the results of the study, it is suggested that each educational
institution needs to explore the perceptions of their learning environment and
approaches to learning among its students to enhance the quality of education in
Pakistan.
References
Akbari, S. A. H., & Naqvi, S. N. H. (2008). The demand for higher education: Old
and new challenges. HEC News and Views, November–December, pp. 2–4.
Biggs, J. (1979). Individual differences in study processes and the quality of learning
outcomes. Higher Education, 8(4), 381-394.
Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher

Education, 32, 347-364.
Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham: SRHE and
Open University Press.
Biggs, J. (1999). What the student does: Teaching for enhanced learning. Higher
Education Research & Development, 18(1), 57-75.
Eley, M. G. (1992). Differential adoption of study approaches within individual

students. Higher Education, 23, 231-254.
Entwistle, N. (1987). Motivation to learn: Conceptualizations and practicalities.”

British Journal of Educational Studies, 35(2), 129-148.
Entwistle, N., McCune, V & Hounsell, J. (2003). Investigating ways of enhancing

university teaching–learning environments: Measuring students‟ approaches
to studying and perceptions of teaching. In E. De Corte, L. Verschaffel, N.
Entwistle, and J. van Merriënboer (Eds.), Powerful learning environments:
Unravelling basic components and dimensions, (pp. 89–107). Oxford:
Pergamon.
Entwistle, N., Tait, H., & McCune, V. (2000). Patterns of response to an approaches
to studying inventory across contrasting groups and contexts. European
Journal of Psychology of Education, 15, 33-48.
Isani, U. A. G., & Virk, M. L. (2003). Higher education in Pakistan: A historical and
futuristic perspective. Islamabad: National Book Foundation.
Kember, D., Leung, D. Y. P., & Mcnaought, C. (2008). A workshop activity to

demonstrate that approaches to learning are influenced by the teaching and
learning environment. Active Learning in Higher Education, 9(1): 43-56.
Kreber, C. (2003). The relationship between students‟ course perception and their
approaches to studying in undergraduate science courses: A Canadian
experience.” Higher Education Research and Development, 22(1), 57-75.
Lawless, C. J., & Richardson, J. T. E. (2002). Approaches to studying and

perceptions of academic quality in distance education.” Higher Education,
44(2), 257-282.
Mann, S. (2001). Alternative perspectives on the student experience: alienation and

engagement. Studies in Higher Education 26(1), 7-19.
Marton, F., & Sӓ ljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning: I-Outcome

and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4-11.
Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1990). Student evaluation of teaching and courses:
Student study strategies as a criterion of validity. Higher Education, 20, 135-
142.
Ramsden, P. (1979). Student learning and perceptions of the academic environment.

Higher Education, 8(4), 411-427.
Ramsden, P. (1991). A performance indicator of teaching quality in higher education:

The course experience questionnaire”. Studies in Higher Education, 16(2),
129-150.
Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to Teach in Higher Education. London: Routledge.
Ramsden, P. (1998). Managing the effective university. Higher Education Research

and Development, 17(3), 347-370.
Richardson, J. T. E. (2000). Researching student learning: approaches to studying in

campus-based and distance education. Buckingham: SRHE and Open
University Press.
Richardson, J. T. E. (2005). Students‟ approaches to learning and teachers‟

approaches to teaching in higher education. Educational Psychology, 25(6):
673-680.
Richardson, J. T. E. (2003). Approaches to studying and perceptions of academic

quality in a short web-based course. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 34(4), 433-442.
Richardson, J. T. E. (2005a). Instruments for obtaining student feedback: A review of

the literature. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(4): 387-
415.
Richardson, J. T. E. (2005b). Students‟ perceptions of academic quality and

approaches to studying in distance education. British Educational Research
Journal, 31(1), 7-27.
Richardson, J. T. E. (2005). Students‟ approaches to learning and teachers‟

approaches to teaching in higher education. Educational Psychology, 25(6):
673-680.
Richardson, J. T. E. (2007). Variations in student learning and perceptions of

academic quality. In N. Entwistle & P. Tomlinson (Eds.), Student learning
and university teaching (British Journal of Educational Psychology
Monograph Series II, Vol. 4, pp. 61-71). Leicester, UK: The British
Psychological Society.
Richardson, J. T. E. (2009). Face-to-face versus online tutoring support in business

studies courses in distance education. International Journal of Management
Education, 7(3), 1-11.
Richardson, J. T. E. (2009). Face-to-face versus online tutoring support in humanities

courses in distance education. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 8,
69-85.
Richardson, J. T. E. (2009). What can students‟ perceptions of academic quality tell

us? Research using the Course Experience Questionnaire.” In M. Tight, K. H.
Mok, J. Huisman, & C. C. Morphew (Eds.) The Routledge International
Handbook of Higher Education (pp. 199-209). New York: Routledge.
Richardson, J. T.E., Dawson, L., Sadlo, G., Jenkins, V., & Maccines, J. (2007).
Perceived academic quality and approaches to studying in the health
professions. Medical Teacher, 29, e108-e116.
Richardson, J. T.E., Gamborg, G., & Hammerberg, G. (2005). Perceived academic

quality and approaches to studying at Danish schools of Occupational
Therapy.” Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 12, 110-117.
Richardson, J. T. E., Morgan, A., & Woodley, A. (1999). Approaches to studying in

distance education. Higher Education, 37, 23-55.
Richardson, J.T.E., & Price, L. (2003). Approaches to studying and perceptions of

academic quality in electronically delivered courses. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 34(1), 45-56.
Sadlo, G., & Richardson, J. T. E. (2003). Approaches to studying and perceptions of

the academic environment in students following problem-based and subject-
based curricula. Higher Education Research & Development, 22(3), 253-273.
Siddiqui, S. (2007). Rethinking education in Pakistan: perceptions, practices and

possibilities. Karachi: Paramount Publishing Enterprise.
Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1991). Improving the quality of student learning: The
influence of learning context and student approaches to learning on learning
outcomes. Higher Education, 22, 151-266.
Trigwell, K., & Prossor, M. (1996). Congruence between intention and strategy in
university science teachers‟ approaches to teaching. Higher Education,
32, 77-87.
Ullah, R., Richardson, J. T. E., & Hafeez, M. (2011). Approaches to studying and
perceptions of the academic environment among university students in
Pakistan. Compare, 41, 113–127. doi:10.1080/03057921003647065
Ullah, R., Richardson, J. T. E., & Hafeez, M. (2013). Variations in perceptions of the
learning environment and approaches to studying among university students
in Pakistan. Prospects, 43, 165-186.
Wierstra, R. F. A., Kanselaar, G., Linden, J. L. V D., Lodewijks, H. G L. C., &

Vermunt, J. D. (2003). The impact of university context on European
students‟ learning approaches and learning environment Preferences. Higher
Education, 45, 503-523.
Wilson, K. L., Lizzio, A., & Ramsden, P. (1997). The Development, validation and
application of the course experience questionnaire.” Studies in Higher
Education, 22(1), 33-53.
Zhang, Li-Fang., & Watkins, D. (2001). Cognitive development and student

approaches to learning: An investigation of Perry‟s theory with Chinese and
U.S. university students”. Higher Education, 41(3): 239-261.
Relationship between Approaches to Studying,
Perceptions of the Learning Environment,
Academic Motivation and Learning Preferences:
A Study of Higher Education Students in Pakistan
Raza Ullah, PhD,

Institute of Social and Cultural Studies, University of the Punjab, Lahore
Mobile Phone: +992 333 4532656
Email: razaullah01@gmail.com
Ifra Iftkhar, PhD, Institute of Social and Cultural Studies, University of the Punjab,
Lahore. ifra1@live.com
Muhammad Siddique Akbar, PhD, Institute of Social and Cultural Studies, University of
the Punjab, Lahore
Mobile Phone: +992 300 9875062
Email: ms_akbar41@yahoo.com
Abstract
Approaches to learning are the ways of going about learning. Three main approaches
have been identified in research on student learning: a deep approach, a surface approach
and a strategic approach. This study aimed at investigating relationship between
perceptions of the learning environment, academic motivation, learning preferences and
approaches to studying among higher education students in Pakistan. The study was
conducted with the students in B.A. /B.Sc. honours and Master degree programmes at
two universities. A questionnaire was administered to a randomly selected sample of the
students. Correlation analysis was carried out to examine the relationship between the
perceptions, academic motivation, learning preferences and approaches to learning. The
results of the study showed that the students who had positive perceptions of the learning
environment, adopted the deep approaches to studying, whereas, those who had negative
perceptions, adopted the surface approaches to studying. Moreover, the findings showed
meaningful association between the perceptions, academic motivation, learning
preferences and approaches to studying.
Keywords: Approaches to studying; perceptions of learning environment; academic
motivation; learning preferences; higher education students
2
Introduction
Approaches to studying may be defined as the ways of going about learning. Students in
higher education adopt a deep approach or a surface approach to learning (Marton and
Sӓljö, 1976). The deep approach to learning is characterized by attempts to understand
the learning material and to relate the new information with the previous knowledge and
experience. Those who adopt the deep approach to learning, try to apply knowledge to
real life issues. The surface approach, on the other hand, is characterized by attempts to
memorize the material for reproduction in the examination. Another approach to studying
is a strategic approach whereby the students try to achieve the highest grades with cost
effective use of time and effort (Ramsden, 1979). According to Richardson (1994), the
deep approach and the surface approach to studying are found in all systems of higher
education.
How a student deals with a learning task is not a characteristic of the student
(Biggs, 1999, p. 17) but depends on the context in which he or she learns (Laurillard,
1979). Students respond to the perceived demands of the learning environment
(Laurillard, 1979; Ramsden, 1979). The same student may adopt different approaches on
different occasions according to the demands of the courses (Ramsden, 1992, p. 51).
Moreover, students may have preferences with regard to approaches to studying but may
not maintain their preferred approaches if it is not supported by the learning environment
(Biggs, 1999, p. 17).
Approaches to learning and studying refer to qualitative aspects of learning; the
way people learn instead of how much they learn (Ramsden, 1992, p. 40). Quality of
learning outcomes is associated with how the students go about learning (Biggs, 1979;
Marton and Sӓljö, 1976; Ramsden, 1992; Trigwell and Prosser, 1991). The deep
approaches lead to high quality learning and the surface approaches to low quality
learning outcomes. (Ramsden, 1992, p. 82).
Ramsden (1979) found that contextual variables (student-teacher relationship,
commitment to teaching, workload, vocational relevance, teaching methods, social
climate, clear goals and standards and freedom in learning) influenced the students’
interest in the learning task. Entwistle (1987) argues that good teaching leads to intrinsic
motivation and the deep approach to studying. On the other hand, both intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation to learn is constrained by the teaching that does not involve the
students in the learning process (Hanrahan, 1998). Motivation explains the difference
between students in terms of amount of effort that they put into learning (Entwistle,
1987). Entwistle maintains that motivation relates to the learners’ motives and goals and
also to the interest generated by the teachers and rewards by the system.
Motivation is an integral part of an approach to learning, and determines the
approach by interacting with student’s strategy to learn (Willis, 1993). Entwistle (1987)
argues that the students’ motivation can be enhanced by making the curricula more
relevant to vocational career. In a study, Ramsden (1983) found that polytechnic students
were more likely than the university students to use the deep approach to studying.
According to him, perceived relevance of the courses might have motivated the students
to use the deep approach to studying. Kember (2000) also argues that Asian students are
motivated by the courses that prepare them for gainful employment. He maintains that the
motivation created by relevance of the courses to the future employment cannot be
viewed negatively because it is associated with greater effort by the students to
understand the material.
3
Learning environment and approaches to learning
The learning environment may be student-centred or teacher-centred. The teacher-centred
learning environment focuses on teaching and the student centred environment focuses on
learning. In teacher-centred learning environment efforts are directed toward improving
the teaching skills of the teachers to make the teaching more effective. Such an
environment is not characterized by active involvement of the students and lecturing is a
predominant mode of instruction in this environment. There is not very much interaction
among the students and between the teacher and the students. It lacks debate and
discussion in the classes and teaching learning process is unidirectional and dominated by
the teacher. The teacher does not act as facilitator but as a dispenser of knowledge. The
teacher focuses on transmission of knowledge to the students. The teachers who use
teacher-focused strategy tend to encourage surface approach among their students
(Trigwell and Prossor (1996).
The student-centred learning environment is characterized by active participation
of the students in the learning process. Knowledge is not transmitted from teacher to
students like the teacher centred learning environment but it is created through debate,
discussions and teaching learning activities. “By providing safe spaces in which students
are accepted and respected, and in which uninformed, ambiguous, non-rational, illogical,
unclear ideas, expressions and play are welcomed and listened to, we can nurture
creativity, the desire to learn…” (Mann, 2001, p.17).
Constructive learning is associated with conceptual-oriented and student-oriented
environment; whereas, reproductive learning is associated with reproduction-oriented and
teacher-oriented learning environment (Wierstra, Kanselaar, Linden, Lodewijks, &
Vermunt, 2003). Ramsden (1998) argues that teachers can enhance the students’ learning
by creating student-centred environment where they have opportunities to be actively
engaged with the learning tasks. “Institutions of higher education have a responsibility to
create learning environments that promote deep level learning. To what extent this
actually happens depends…on individual instructors...structure of the programme and
culture of the department (Kreber, 2003, p. 59).
Approaches to learning are not characteristics of the individuals; they are
influenced by demands of the learning environment (Laurillard, 1979; Ramsden, 1979).
According to Biggs (1999), learning process consists of presage (individual and
contextual factors), process (approaches to studying) and product (learning outcomes)
factors. He argues that individual factors (e.g. ability, interest, prior knowledge) and
contextual factors (e.g. curricula, teaching, assessment) determine the approaches to
studying. Lizzio, Wilson & Simons (2002) investigated the relative effect of presage
factors (e.g. Ability, personality, prior academic ability) and contextual factors (e.g.
curricula, instruction, assessment) on the students’ approaches to studying. The students’
perceptions of the current learning environment (e.g. teaching quality, assessment, course
design) were stronger predictor of learning in university than their prior achievement at
school.
Method
Population of study
The study was conducted with students who were enrolled in honours or master’s degree
programmes at the two universities in Lahore. If a department was running both the
honours and the master’s degree programmes then the students who were in honours
degree programmes were included in the population; however, the students in master’s
programmes were included if the department did not offer the honours programme. The
4
population included both the male and the female students in all the years of the
educational programmes offered in the morning and afternoon/evening.
Sampling
Multistage sampling procedure was used to draw samples from two clusters (two
universities) of the population. The samples were conducted separately at the two
universities. At the first stage, all the departments of each university (which offered
honours programmes or master’s programmes or offered both honours and master’s
programmes) were divided into four categories of disciplines: social sciences, science and
technology, humanities and management sciences. At the second stage, sampling frames
were formed at the each sampled department at both the universities. Then samples of the
students were drawn from the sampling frames prepared at the sampled departments by
taking into account the year of study and timing of the educational degree programme.
The total sample consisted of 912 students from 22 departments in the four subject areas
at the two universities. In total, there were 494 males and 418 females aged between 17
and 27 with a mean age of 20.53 years.
Instruments
The questionnaire consisted of five parts. Part A was based on the 36-item Course
Experience Questionnaire (CEQ; Wilson, Lizzio, & Ramsden, 1997) and was used (after
minor changes to make it suitable for use in Pakistani context) to measure the students’
perceptions of their learning environment. Based on a factor analysis of the students’
responses to this part of the questionnaire, Ullah et al. (2011) defined four scales:
Instructional Practices, Appropriate Workload, Generic Skills and Appropriate
Assessment.
Part B of the questionnaire contained one item on learning resources, two items
on student support (McInnis, Griffin, James & Coates (2001) and two new items
concerned with physical space and computing resources. Part C was based on an
instrument that had been devised by Entwistle, Tait, and McCune (2000) to measure the
students’ preferences for different types of course and teaching but included three
additional items concerned with preferences for different types of assessment. Part D
consisted of seven new items intended to measure students’ level of motivation. Part E
was based on Entwistle, McCune, and Hounsell’s (2003) Approaches to Learning and
Studying Inventory (ALSI).
Procedure
The questionnaire consisted of five parts A-E. All the items in each part of the
questionnaire were followed by five answer categories, from definitely agree to definitely
disagree. The questionnaires were administered to the students during their classes.
Attempts were made to contact absent students through the teachers or their classmates. If
a student was not contactable then he was replaced with another student from the same
class, gender and year of study.
Data analysis
The responses to Parts A–E were analyzed separately to determine the underlying
constructs that the students had used (reported; Ullah et al. 2011). The technique known
as factor analysis provides evidence that a questionnaire measures one or more distinctive
traits or constructs. Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was used to analyze
the relationships between the variables (factor-based scales).
5
Results
Table 1 shows that supporting understanding is positively correlated with both
engagement and reliability, and transmitting information has positive correlation with
reliability and negative correlation with engagement. Students’ preferences for courses,
teaching and assessment that support transmission of information have a positive
association with reliability and a negative association with engagement.
Table 1. Correlation between scales from learning preferences and motivation
Engagement Reliability
Supporting .23** .23**

Understanding
Transmitting Information -.08* .08*
* p < 0.05
Table 2 shows that supporting understanding, engagement and reliability have

positive correlation with instructional practices, generic skills and learning resources.
Appropriate workload and appropriate assessment have negative correlations with
transmitting information. The appropriate assessment also has positive correlation with
the engagement and the reliability.
Table 2. Correlation between scales from students’ perceptions of learning environment,

learning resources, learning preferences and motivation
Supporting Transmitting Engagement Reliability
Understanding Information
Instructional .22** -.00 .58** .30**
Practices
Appropriate .06 -.17** .06 .04

Workload
Generic Skills .22** .02 .38** .32**
Appropriate .00 -.22** .06 .03

Assessment
Learning .16** -.00 .41** .27**
Resources
** p < 0.01
Table 3 below shows that deep approach, organized studying and monitoring
studying have positive correlation with instructional practices, generic skills, learning
resources, supporting understanding, engagement and reliability. The surface approach
has negative correlation with instructional practices, appropriate workload, generic skills,
appropriate assessment, engagement and reliability and a positive correlation with
transmitting information. The surface approach also has a negative correlation with the
learning resources.
6
Appropriate workload has a positive correlation with the deep approach and a
negative correlation with the surface approach. Appropriate assessment has a positive
correlation with the deep approach and negative correlation with the organized studying
and the surface approach. The transmitting information has positive correlation with the
organized studying, surface approach and the monitoring studying, and a negative
association with the deep approach.
Table 3. Correlation between the scales from students’ perceptions of the learning
environment, learning resources, learning preferences, motivation, and their
approaches to learning
Deep Organized Surface Monitoring
Approach Studying Approach Studying
Instructional .66** .19** -.13** .13**
Practices
Appropriate .10** .02 -.18** -.01

Workload
Generic Skills .52** .22** -.21** .22**
Appropriate .07* -.10** -.21** .00
Assessment
Learning .39** .12** -.06 .17**
Resources
Supporting .30** .15** -.00 .21**
Understanding
Transmitting -.09** .13** .21** .08*

Information
Engagement .62** .22** -.08* .17**
Reliability .35** .29** -.07* .20**
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01
Discussion
This study was correlational in nature and identified particular learning patterns instead
of identifying causal relationships. Therefore, strictly speaking, the results did not say
anything about the nature or direction of the underlying causal relationships among the
constructs being measured by the scales. For example, the results showed that the
students who had more positive perceptions of their courses were more likely to use
desirable approaches to studying. However, they did not show whether this was because
(a) having more positive perceptions caused students to use more desirable approaches,
(b) using more desirable approaches caused students to have more positive perceptions or
(c) the causal relationship between perceptions and approaches went in both directions.
Correlation analysis was carried out to investigate the relationship between the
perceptions of the learning environment, approaches to studying, learning preferences
and academic motivation among the students.
7
According to the results of the study the students who preferred the learning
environment that supports understanding were more likely to be engaged and reliable. On
the other hand, the students who preferred the learning environment that supports
transmission of information were not likely to be engaged with their study.
The students who had positive perceptions of the instructional practices, generic
skills and the learning resources were more likely to be engaged and reliable (motivated);
they were also more likely to prefer the learning environment that supports
understanding. The correlations also suggested that the students who had positive
perceptions of the workload and assessment were not likely to prefer the learning
environment supports transmission of information.
The students who had positive perceptions of the learning environment
(instructional practices, generic skills, workload, assessment and learning resources) were
more likely to use the deep approaches but they were not likely to use surface approach to
studying. The findings are consistent with the findings of the previous studies (Kreber,
2003; Laurillard 1979; Lawless and Richardson, 2002; Parsons, 1988; Ramsden, 1979;
Ramsden, 1991; Ramsden and Entwistle, 1981; Richardson, 2003; Richardson, 2005;
Richardson, 2009; Richardson, 2009; Richardson, Dawson, Sadlo, Jenkins & Maccines,
2007; Richardson, Gamborg & Hammerberg. 2005; Richardson and Price 2003; Sadlo
and Richardson 2003; Trigwell and Prosser, 1991; Wilson, Lizzio & Ramsden, 1997).
The correlations suggested that students who were engaged and reliable
(motivated) were more likely to use the deep approach, organized studying and
monitoring studying but they were not likely to use the surface approach. The findings
are broadly consistent with Entwistle and Tait (1990), Ramsden (1992), Davies, Sivan
and Kember, (1994), Berglund, Daniels, Hedenborg & Tengstrand (1998), Delva, Kirby,
Knapper & Birthwistle (2002) and Abraham (2006).
The students who preferred the learning environment that supports understanding
were more likely to use the deep approach, organized studying and the monitoring
studying. On the other hand the students who preferred the learning environment that
supports transmission of information were more likely to use the surface approach,
organized studying and the monitoring studying but they were not likely to use the deep
approach to studying. The findings are consistent with Byrne, Flood, & Willis, (2004),
Entwistle and Tait (1990), Hativa and Birenbaum (2000), Kember and Wong (2000),
Sharma (1997), Wierstra, Kanselaar, Linden, Lodewijks & Vermunt (2003) and Wong
and Watkins (1998).
Students who perceived the assessment practices to be appropriate were likely to
use the deep approach to studying; however, they were not likely to use the organized
studying and the surface approach. The positive perceptions of assessment practices were
more likely to discourage the organized studying and the surface approaches than to
encourage the deep approach to studying among the students. The findings are broadly
consistent with Abraham (2006), Case and Gunstone (2002), Entwistle and Entwistle
(1991), Lizzio, Wilson and Simons (2002), Richardson, Gamborg Hammerberg (2005)
and Struyven, Dochy and Janssens (2005).
Conclusion
The study was correlational in nature; therefore, existence and direction of association
between the variables was not analyzed. According to the results of the study, perceptions
of the learning environment, approaches to studying, academic motivation and learning
preferences were found to be associated with each other in a meaningful way. Students’
positive perceptions of the learning environment were associated with their use of deep
8
approaches, and the negative perceptions were associated with their use of surface
approach to learning. The students learning preferences and academic motivation were
associated with both their perceptions and approaches. Moreover, the students’ academic
motivation was associated with their learning preferences. In other words, students who
were more motivated than others preferred the learning environment that supports
understanding. The study identified the aspects of the learning environment that were
associated with the desirable approaches to learning and the aspects that were associated
with the less desirable approaches to learning. The results can be used to modify the
learning environment to enhance students’ approaches to learning and quality of the
learning outcomes.
9
References
Abraham, A. (2006). Teaching and learning accounting education: Students’ perceptions
of the linkages between teaching context, approaches to learning and outcomes. In
Juchau, R and Tibbits, G (eds), Celebrating Accounting (pp. 9-21). University of
Western Sydney.
Biggs, J. (1979). Individual differences in study processes and the quality of learning
outcomes. Higher Education, 8(4), 381-394.
Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham: SRHE and
Open University Press.
Biggs, J. (1999). What the student does: Teaching for enhanced learning. Higher
Education Research & Development, 18(1), 57-75.
Berglund, A., Daniels, M., Hedenborg, M., & Tengstrand, A. (1998). Assessment to
increase students’ creativity: Two case studies. European Journal of Engineering
Education, 23(1), 45-54.
Davies, H., Sivan, A., & Kember, D. (1994). Helping Hong Kong business students to
appreciate how they learn. Higher Education, 27(3), 367-378.
Entwistle, N. (1987). Motivation to learn: Conceptualizations and practicalities.” British
Journal of Educational Studies, 35(2), 129-148.
Entwistle, N. (1997). Reconstituting approaches to learning: A response to Webb.”
Entwistle, N., Hanley, M., & Hounsell, D. (1979). Identifying distinctive approaches to
studying. Higher Education, 8, 365-380.
Entwistle, N., McCune, V & Hounsell, J. (2003). Investigating ways of enhancing
university teaching–learning environments: Measuring students’ approaches to
studying and perceptions of teaching. In E. De Corte, L. Verschaffel, N.
Entwistle, and J. van Merriënboer (Eds.), Powerful learning environments:
Unravelling basic components and dimensions, (pp. 89–107). Oxford: Pergamon.
Entwitle, N. J., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. London: Croom
Helm.
Entwistle, N., & Tait, H. (1990). Approaches to learning, evaluation of teaching, and
preferences for contrasting academic environment. Higher Education, 19, 169-
194.
Entwistle, N., Tait, H., & McCune, V. (2000). Patterns of response to an approaches to
studying inventory across contrasting groups and contexts. European Journal of
Psychology of Education, 15, 33-48.
Hanrahan, M. (1998). The effect of learning environment factors on students’ motivation
and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 20(6), 737-753.
Kember, D. (1996). The intention to both memorize and understand: Another approach to
learning? Higher Education, 31(3), 341-354.
Kember, D. (2000). Misconceptions about the learning approaches, motivation and study
practices of Asian students. Higher Education, 40(1), 99-121.
Kember, D. & Gow, L. (1994). Orientations to teaching and their effect on the quality of
student learning. Journal of Higher Education, 65(1), 58-74.
Kember, D., & Wong, A. (2000). Implications for evaluation from a study of students’
perceptions of good and poor teaching. Higher Education, 40(1), 69-97.
Kreber, C. (2003). The relationship between students’ course perception and their
approaches to studying in undergraduate science courses: A Canadian
experience.” Higher Education Research and Development, 22(1), 57-75.
Laurillard, D. (1979).The processes of student learning. Higher Education, 8, 395-409.
10
Lawless, C. J., & Richardson, J. T. E. (2002). Approaches to studying and perceptions of
academic quality in distance education.” Higher Education, 44(2), 257-282.
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.
Marton, F., & Sӓljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning: I-Outcome and
process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4-11.
Parsons, P. G. (1988). The Lancaster approaches to studying inventory and course
perceptions questionnaire: A replicated study at the Cape Technikon.” South
African Journal of Higher Education, 2(1), 103-111.
Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1990). Student evaluation of teaching and courses: Student
study strategies as a criterion of validity. Higher Education, 20, 135-142.
Ramsden, P. (1979). Student learning and perceptions of the academic environment.
Ramsden, P. (1983). Institutional variations in British students’ approaches to learning
and experiences of teaching. Higher Education, 12, 691-705.
Ramsden, P. (1991). A performance indicator of teaching quality in higher education:
The course experience questionnaire”. Studies in Higher Education, 16(2), 129-
150.
Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to Teach in Higher Education. London: Routledge.
Ramsden, P. (1998). Managing the effective university. Higher Education Research and
Development, 17(3), 347-370.
Ramsden, P., & Entwistle, N. J. (1981). Effects of academic departments on students’
approaches to studying. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 368-383.
Richardson, J. T. E. (1994). Cultural specificity of approaches to studying in higher
education: A literature Survey. Higher Education, 27: 449-468.
Richardson, J. T. E. (1994). Mature students in higher education: I. A literature survey on
approaches to studying. Studies in Higher Education, 19, 309-325.
Richardson, J. T. E. (2005). Students’ approaches to learning and teachers’ approaches to
teaching in higher education. Educational Psychology, 25(6): 673-680.
Richardson, J. T.E., Dawson, L., Sadlo, G., Jenkins, V., & Maccines, J. (2007). Perceived
academic quality and approaches to studying in the health professions. Medical
Teacher, 29, e108-e116.
Richardson, J. T.E., Gamborg, G., & Hammerberg, G. (2005). Perceived academic
quality and approaches to studying at Danish schools of Occupational Therapy.”
Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 12, 110-117.
Sadlo, G., & Richardson, J. T. E. (2003). Approaches to studying and perceptions of the
academic environment in students following problem-based and subject-based
curricula. Higher Education Research & Development, 22(3), 253-273.
Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1991). Improving the quality of student learning: The
influence of learning context and student approaches to learning on learning
outcomes. Higher Education, 22, 151-266.
Ullah, R., Richardson, J. T. E., & Hafeez, M. (2011). Approaches to studying and
perceptions of the academic environment among university students in Pakistan.
Compare, 41, 113–127. doi:10.1080/03057921003647065
Ullah, R., Richardson, J. T. E., & Hafeez, M. (2013). Variations in perceptions of the
learning environment and approaches to studying among university students in
Pakistan. Prospects, 43, 165-186.
11
Wierstra, R. F. A., Kanselaar, G., Linden, J. L. V D., Lodewijks, H. G L. C., & Vermunt,
J. D. (2003). The impact of university context on European students’ learning
approaches and learning environment Preferences. Higher Education, 45, 503-
523.
Willis, D. (1993). Learning and assessment: Exposing the inconsistencies of theory and
practice. Oxford Review of Education, 19(3), 383-402.
Wilson, K. L., Lizzio, A., & Ramsden, P. (1997). The Development, validation and
application of the course experience questionnaire.” Studies in Higher Education,
22(1), 33-53.
12
View publication stats

Political Participation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Political Participation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Political Participation of the Educated in Pakistan

Article · May 2018

basic understanding of political concepts View project

Role of News media in promoting Deliberative Democracy View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Political Participation of the Educated in Pakistan

Considerable amount of research has been done examining the relation

Figure 1: Graph comparing amount of consumption of news media programmes

Table 4 - Descriptive statistics of participatory activities of the three SERL groups

Middle 9.069* 170 11.101* 170 6.045* 170

High 4.573* 29 5.467* 29 1.795 29

Inkeles, A. a. (1974). Becoming Modern. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Perrin, A. J. (2006). Citizen speak: the democratic imagination in American life.

Youth Partnership (Organization), E. C. (2009). European citizenship--in the process

Approaches to Learning, Perceptions of Educational

Raza Ullah*, Ifra Iftikhar** and Bushra Yasmeen***

Keywords: students‟ perceptions of educational environment, approaches to learning,

The approaches to learning are the students‟ reactions to the learning

Literature shows that quality of learning is associated with approaches to

Table 1.1: Defining features of three approaches to learning

Intention to complete task requirements

Intention to obtain highest possible grades

Source: Richardson (2000, p. 28), adapted from Entwistle (1987)

to learning. For instance, teaching practices may encourage conceptual understanding

The learning environment may be student-centred or teacher-centred. The

The student-centred learning environment is characterized by active

Higher Education in Pakistan

Although, number of institutions increased rapidly since independence;

Higher education in Pakistan has received special attention in recent years.

Higher educational institutions in Pakistan work in both public and private

Admission to universities and other institutions of higher education (both

Generally, universities in Pakistan offer four-year B.A./B.Sc. honours,

population; however, the students in master‟s programmes were included if the

Table 1: Mean Scores (and Standard Errors) by University

learning environment, learning preferences, approaches to studying and academic

Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher

Eley, M. G. (1992). Differential adoption of study approaches within individual

Entwistle, N. (1987). Motivation to learn: Conceptualizations and practicalities.”

Entwistle, N., McCune, V & Hounsell, J. (2003). Investigating ways of enhancing

Kember, D., Leung, D. Y. P., & Mcnaought, C. (2008). A workshop activity to

Lawless, C. J., & Richardson, J. T. E. (2002). Approaches to studying and

Mann, S. (2001). Alternative perspectives on the student experience: alienation and

Marton, F., & Sӓ ljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning: I-Outcome

Ramsden, P. (1979). Student learning and perceptions of the academic environment.

Ramsden, P. (1991). A performance indicator of teaching quality in higher education:

Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to Teach in Higher Education. London: Routledge.

Ramsden, P. (1998). Managing the effective university. Higher Education Research

Richardson, J. T. E. (2000). Researching student learning: approaches to studying in

Richardson, J. T. E. (2005). Students‟ approaches to learning and teachers‟

Richardson, J. T. E. (2003). Approaches to studying and perceptions of academic

Richardson, J. T. E. (2005a). Instruments for obtaining student feedback: A review of

Richardson, J. T. E. (2005b). Students‟ perceptions of academic quality and

Richardson, J. T. E. (2005). Students‟ approaches to learning and teachers‟

Richardson, J. T. E. (2007). Variations in student learning and perceptions of

Richardson, J. T. E. (2009). Face-to-face versus online tutoring support in business

Richardson, J. T. E. (2009). Face-to-face versus online tutoring support in humanities

Richardson, J. T. E. (2009). What can students‟ perceptions of academic quality tell

Richardson, J. T.E., Gamborg, G., & Hammerberg, G. (2005). Perceived academic

Richardson, J. T. E., Morgan, A., & Woodley, A. (1999). Approaches to studying in

Richardson, J.T.E., & Price, L. (2003). Approaches to studying and perceptions of

Sadlo, G., & Richardson, J. T. E. (2003). Approaches to studying and perceptions of

Siddiqui, S. (2007). Rethinking education in Pakistan: perceptions, practices and

Raza Ullah, Ifra Iftikhar and Bushra Yasmeen

Supporting .23 .23

Appropriate .10 .02 -.18 -.01

Transmitting -.09 .13 .21** .08*

Engagement .62 .22 -.08* .17**

Reliability .35 .29 -.07* .20**