Relations between teacher students’ approaches to learning, cognitive and attributional strategies, well-being, and study success

Task: Read the article. Make a reflective blog post. Share two important things with others group members and make some question you would like to discuss with others in the blog.

In their article “Relations between teacher students’ approaches to learning, cognitive and attributional strategies, well-being, and study success” (2012), Annamari Heikkilä et al. explore the question of what motivates Finnish first-year students in education to become teachers. Set against the background of the high reputation that the teaching profession in Finland enjoys worldwide, the article’s focus is on the perspectives of these young future professionals, on how they view learning in general, and on what learning strategies they employ during their own studies.

The article begins by outlining two main approaches to learning: “the deep approach” and “the surface approach.” The former is defined as the pursuit of meaning and understanding, whereas the latter focuses on memorization and rote learning. Although the “surface approach” is commonly interpreted as the wish to put in minimum effort to meet the minimum requirements and is typically dismissed in favor of the “deep approach”, Heikkilä et al. also emphasize the existence of studies that have shown these two approaches to not be mutually exclusive, in order words, studies that have shown that rote learning and memorization can also lead to deep understanding. This is an opinion I profoundly agree with. My own approaches to learning during my studies were often been based on memorization, and they required anything but minimum effort. I would also argue that memorization actually requires a profound understanding of the subject matter; if a student studying for an exam tries to memorize a longer text passage without truly understanding the subject, the student is unlikely to remember that passage while doing the exam. A student who has grasped the subject’s essence, however, typically remembers the text passage – even if not word by word. These conjectures raise the question of what memorization actually is and whether those who dismiss it actually understand it in the same way than those who successfully practice it.      

Outlining various other approaches to learning, the article not only highlighted the importance of students’ personal attitudes towards their studies, but also the relevance of stress and dealing with stressful situations for students’ well-being and, consequently, for study success. For their case study, Heikkilä et al. analyzed the responses of 213 first-year elementary teacher and kindergarten teacher students who participated in an introductory course in educational psychology at Helsinki University in 2005 and 2006. The responses were collected in a questionnaire that measured the students’ approaches to learning (deep, critical, or surface approaches), their problems with learning or learning schedules, their levels of stress and their well-being, their epistemological beliefs, and their study success. The results showed that deep understanding was closely tied to an optimistic attitude towards one’s studies and to a student’s ability to think critically, whereas task avoidance was observed in students that lack self-regulation.

The study also found the participants to fall into three groups: (1) non-regulating students, (2) self-directed students, and (3) non-reflective students. Each group was examined in relation to social optimism, lack of interest, stress and exhaustion.   The most optimistic group were the self-directed students, whereas the highest levels of stress and exhaustion were observed amongst non-regulating students. These results seem little surprising to me, as I often find the most disoriented students to be the ones who appear to be most stressed towards the end of a course and the ones most likely to drop out. The authors of the study were surprised to find that the non-regulating students form the biggest group, i.e. 50 %. These type of students tended to avoid challenging tasks, had difficulties regulating their studies, showed the least interest in their studies, and suffered most from stress. The authors’ proposed explanation for the big size of this group was extremely interesting: in their opinion, in Finland, the transition from High School to University is very demanding, and they feel that there is a big gap between the demands of the academic environment and the competence of students at that level. While I have never experienced the Finnish High School system myself, I believe that there is much truth in this observation and I feel that this gap is actually widening. I have taught first-year students for many years and have noticed that skills that could be taken for granted in the early 2000s are now becoming an exception amongst students. Another interesting suggestion by the authors, which I find equally true, is that these students may be highly work-life oriented. Such students, as they explain elsewhere, prefer knowledge that they can apply in practice. Personally, I have observed a tendency amongst Finnish students to base their study choice on career interest rather than subject interest. They appear to pick a career – based on what is needed, based on what pays well, based on what type of jobs are secure – rather than a field of study that truly interests them. I observed this tendency already in the late 90s when I first came to Finland, and always found it somewhat frustrating that very few of my fellow Finnish students talked enthusiastically about the courses they studied; their main aim was to get their diploma and a job rather than getting an education. Now that I think about this, I wonder whether that attitude could be a result of the economic depression that Finland suffered in the 1990s. In the light of that, it is perhaps little surprising.

A similar work-life approach has been observed amongst the non-reflective students (22%), albeit these students suffered less from stress-related issues, whereas the self-directed students (28%) showed the deepest understanding, critical thinking, optimism, and lowest levels of stress. On the whole, to me, these outcomes seem hardly surprising. What I found the article to be lacking was a proper explanation of the significance of this type of research. The article presents merely observations; only the last paragraph superficially addresses the fact that teacher education ought to be developed, but it does not suggest how. I fully agree with the authors that teachers are motivators at school. For me, this raises the questions of how unmotivated teacher students can become motivators in their future teaching profession. The authors leave this question unanswered; this, however, should be where the real discussion starts. In my opinion, someone who does not like to learn will not be good at teaching.

Question for YPE-students: I have often observed that Finns seem to pick their study subject based on a career wish rather than based on true interest. Would you agree with this? Do you think this attitude could be a result of the Finnish economic depression of the 90s? Or is it perhaps a general cultural thing?

Source: 

Heikkilä A. ym. 2012 Relations between Teacher Students' Approaches to Learning, Cognitive and Attributional Strategies, Well-Being, and Study Success Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education and Educational Planning , Vol.64(4), p.455-471. 

Writer: 
Katrin Korkalainen
Student of University Pedagogy
University of Oulu