Educational Psychology Review

, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp 325–345 | Cite as

The Conceptual Bases of Study Strategy Inventories

  • Noel Entwistle
  • Velda McCune


This article describes the historical origins and development of a series of well-known study strategy inventories and seeks to identify their conceptual bases. The theories and evidence influencing the development of 6 contrasting instruments are considered before examining empirical evidence of similarities and differences between the measurement instruments. This analysis is tackled in three stages, looking first at inventories developed in the 1970s and 1980s that focused mainly on motivation, study methods, and learning processes. The more recent work that brought in mental models, metacognition, and self-regulation is then introduced, leading to a concluding section that discusses the conceptual bases of the whole set of inventories. The trends found in this research area are described and used to explore the current confusion of overlapping terms describing apparently similar aspects of learning and studying in higher education.

approaches to studying study strategy inventory student learning higher education university 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Atkinson, J. W., and Feather, N. T. (1966). A Theory of Achievement Motivation, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  2. Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.Google Scholar
  3. Beaty, L., Gibbs, G., and Morgan, A. (1997). Learning orientations and study contracts. In Marton, F., Hounsell, D. J., and Entwistle, N. J. (eds.), The Experience of Learning (2nd edn.), Scottish Academic Press, Edinburgh, UK, pp. 72–88.Google Scholar
  4. Biggs, J. B. (1970). Faculty pattern in study behaviour. Aust. J. Psychol. 22: 161–174.Google Scholar
  5. Biggs, J. B. (1976). Dimensions of study behaviour: Another look at a.t.i. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 46: 68–80.Google Scholar
  6. Biggs, J. B. (1979). Individual differences in study processes and the quality of learning outcomes. Higher Educ. 8: 381–394.Google Scholar
  7. Biggs, J. B. (1987). Student Approaches to Learning and Studying, Australian Council for Educational Research, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  8. Biggs, J. B. (1993). What do inventories of students’ learning processes really measure? A theoretical review and clarification. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 63: 3–19.Google Scholar
  9. Biggs, J. B. (1999). Teaching for Quality Learning at University, Open University Press, Buckingham, UK.Google Scholar
  10. Biggs, J. B., Kember, D., and Leung, D. Y. P. (2001). The Revised Two Factor Study Process Questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 71: 133–149.Google Scholar
  11. Boekerts, M., Pintrich, P., and Zeidner, M. (eds.). (2000). Handbook of Self-Regulation, Academic Press, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  12. Broadbent, D. E. (1966). The well-ordered mind. Am. Educ. Res. J. 3: 281–295.Google Scholar
  13. Brown, W. F., and Holtzman, W. H. (1966). Manual of the Survey of Study Habits and Attitudes, Psychological Corporation, New York.Google Scholar
  14. Cano-Garcia, F. C., and Justicia-Justicia, F. J. (1994). Learning strategies, styles and approaches: An analysis of their interrelationships. Higher Educ. 27: 239–260.Google Scholar
  15. Craik, F. I. M., and Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. J. Verbal Learn. Verbal Behav. 11: 671–684.Google Scholar
  16. Craik, F. I. M., and Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. J. Exp. Psychol. (Gen.) 104: 268–294.Google Scholar
  17. Dearing Committee. (1997). Higher Education in the Learning Society, National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education (also HMSO), London.Google Scholar
  18. Entwistle, N. J. (1997). Metacognitive and strategic awareness of learning processes and understanding. In Paper presented at the 7th EARLI conference, Athens, Greece.Google Scholar
  19. Entwistle, N. J. (1998). Improving teaching through research on student learning. In Forest, J. J. F. (ed.), University Teaching: International Perspectives, Garland, New York, pp. 73–112.Google Scholar
  20. Entwistle, N. J. (2000). Approaches to studying and levels of understanding: The influences of teaching and assessment. In Smart, J. C. (ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research (Vol. XV), Agathon, New York, pp. 156–218.Google Scholar
  21. Entwistle, N. J., and Entwistle, D. M. (1970). The relationships between personality, study methods and academic performance. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 40: 132–141.Google Scholar
  22. Entwistle, N. J., Hanley, M., and Hounsell, D. J. (1979). Identifying distinctive approaches to studying, Higher Educ. 8: 365–380.Google Scholar
  23. Entwistle, N. J., and Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding Student Learning, Croom Helm, London.Google Scholar
  24. Entwistle, N. J., Thompson, J. B., and Wilson, J. D. (1974). Motivation and study methods. Higher Educ. 3: 379–396.Google Scholar
  25. Entwistle, N. J., and Waterston, S. (1988). Approaches to learning and levels of processing: A comparison of inventories derived from contrasting theoretical bases. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 58: 258–265.Google Scholar
  26. Entwistle, N. J., and Wilson, J. D. (1977). Degrees of Excellence: The Academic Achievement Game, Hodder and Stoughton, London.Google Scholar
  27. Fishbein, M. (1967). Readings in Attitude Theory and Measurement, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  28. Garcia, T. (1996). Self-regulation: An introduction. Learn. Individ. Differences 8: 161–163.Google Scholar
  29. Geisler-Brenstein, E., and Schmeck, R. (1996). The revised inventory of learning processes: A multifaceted perspective on individual differences in learning. In Birenbaum, M., and Dochy, F. (eds.), Alternatives in Assessment of Achievements, Learning Processes, and Prior Knowledge, Kluwer Academic, Norwell, MA.Google Scholar
  30. Janssen, P. J. (1996). Studaxology: The expertise students need to be effective in higher education. Higher Educ. 31: 117–141.Google Scholar
  31. Marton, F., Dall'Alba, G., and Beaty, E. (1993). Conceptions of learning. Int. J. Educ. Res. 19: 277–300.Google Scholar
  32. Marton, F., and Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning: I. Outcome and process. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 46: 4–11.Google Scholar
  33. Marton, F., and Säljö, R. (1997). Approaches to learning. In Marton, F., Hounsell, D. J., and Entwistle, N. J. (eds.), The Experience of Learning (2nd ed.), Scottish Academic, Edinburgh, UK, pp. 39–58.Google Scholar
  34. McKeachie, W. J. (1990). Research on college teaching: The historical background. J. Educ. Psychol. 82: 189–200.Google Scholar
  35. Messick, S. (1994). The matter of style: Manifestations of personality in cognition, learning and teaching. Educ. Psychol. 21: 121–136.Google Scholar
  36. Meyer, J. H. F. (1991). Study orchestration: The manifestation, interpretation and consequences of contextualised approaches to studying. Higher Educ. 22: 297–316.Google Scholar
  37. Meyer, J. H. F. (2000a). An overview of the development and application of the Reflections on Learning Inventory (RoLI). In Paper presented at the invitational RoLI Symposium, Imperial College, London, July 25.Google Scholar
  38. Meyer, J. H. F. (2000b). Variation in contrasting forms of “memorising” and associated observables. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 70: 163–176.Google Scholar
  39. Pask, G. (1976). Styles and strategies of learning. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 46: 128–148.Google Scholar
  40. Pask, G. (1988). Learning strategies, teaching strategies and conceptual or learning style.In Schmeck, R. (ed.), Learning Strategies and Learning Styles, Plenum, New York, pp. 83–100.Google Scholar
  41. Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College Years: A Scheme, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.Google Scholar
  42. Pervin, L. A. (2001). Persons in context: Defining the issues, units, and processes. In Collis, J. M., and Messick, S. (eds.), Intelligence and Personality: Bridging the Gap in Theory and Measurement, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 307–317.Google Scholar
  43. Phillips, D. C. (ed.). (2000). Constructivism in Education, National Society for the Study of Education, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  44. Pintrich, P. R., and Garcia, T. (1991). Student goal orientation and self-regulation in the college classroom. In Maehr, M. L., and Pintrich, P. R. (eds.), Advances in Motivation and Achievement: Vol. 7. Goals and Self-regulatory Processes, JAI, Greenwich, CT, pp. 371–402.Google Scholar
  45. Pintrich, P. R., and Garcia, T. (1993). Intra-individual differences in students’ motivation and self-regulated learning. Ger. J. Educ. Psychol. 7: 99–107.Google Scholar
  46. Pintrich, P. R., and Garcia, T. (1994). Self-regulated learning in college students: Knowl-edge, strategies and motivation. In Pintrich, P. R., Brown, D. R., and Weinstein, C.-E. (eds.), Student Motivation, Cognition and Learning, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 113–134.Google Scholar
  47. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., and McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A Manual for the Use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ), National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning, Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
  48. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., and McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educ. Psychol. Meas. 53: 801–813.Google Scholar
  49. Prosser, M., and Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding Learning and Teaching: The Experience of Higher Education, SRHE/Open University Press, Buckingham, UK.Google Scholar
  50. Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to Teach in Higher Education, Kogan Page, London.Google Scholar
  51. Richardson, J. T. E. (2000). Researching Student Learning: Approaches to Studying in Campus-Based and Distance Education, SRHE/Open University Press, Buckingham, UK.Google Scholar
  52. Säljö, R. (1979). Learning in the Learner's Perspective. I. Some Common-sense Conceptions (Report 76), University of Gothenburg, Department of Education, Gothenburg, Sweden.Google Scholar
  53. Schmeck, R., Geisler-Brenstein, E., and Cercy, S. P. (1991). Self-concept and learning: The revised inventory of learning processes. Educ. Psychol. 11: 343–362.Google Scholar
  54. Schmeck, R., Ribich, F., and Ramanaiah, N. (1977). The development of a self-report inventory for assessing individual differences in learning processes. Appl. Psychol. Meas. 1: 413–431.Google Scholar
  55. Schunk, D. H., and Zimmerman, B. J. (eds.). (1994). Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance: Issues and Educational Applications, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  56. Speth, C., and Brown, R. (1988). Study approaches, processes and strategies: Are three perspectives better than one? Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 58: 247–257.Google Scholar
  57. Tait, H., and Entwistle, N. J. (1996). Identifying students at risk through ineffective study strategies. Higher Educ. 31: 97–116.Google Scholar
  58. Tait, H., Entwistle, N. J., and McCune, V. (1998). ASSIST: A reconceptualisation of the Approaches to Studying Inventory. In Rust, C. (ed.), Improving Student Learning: Improving Students as Learners, Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development, Oxford.Google Scholar
  59. Van Rossum, E. J., and Schenk, S. (1984). The relationship between learning conception, study strategy and learning outcome. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 54: 73–83.Google Scholar
  60. Vermunt, J. D. (1996). Metacognitive, cognitive and affective aspects of learning styles and strategies: A phenomenographic analysis. Higher Educ. 31: 25–50.Google Scholar
  61. Vermunt, J. D. (1998). The regulation of constructive learning processes. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 68: 149–171.Google Scholar
  62. Vermunt, J. D., and van Rijswijk, F. A. W. M. (1988). Analysis and development of students´ ý skill in self-regulated learning. Higher Educ. 17: 647–682.Google Scholar
  63. Volet, S. E. (1997). Cognitive and affective variables in academic learning: The significance of direction and effort in students’ goals. Learn. Instr. 7: 235–254.Google Scholar
  64. Wankowski, J. A. (1973). Temperament, Motivation and Academic Achievement, Birmingham University Educational Survey, Birmingham, UK.Google Scholar
  65. Weinstein, C.-E. (1982). Training students to use elaboration learning strategies. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 7: 301–311.Google Scholar
  66. Weinstein, C.-E., and Mayer, R. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In Wittrock, M. C. (ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (3rd edn.), Macmillan, New York, pp. 315–327.Google Scholar
  67. Weinstein, C.-E., and Meyer, D. K. (1991). Cognitive learning strategies and college teaching. In New Directions for Teaching and Learning (45), Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  68. Weinstein, C.-E., Schulte, A., and Palmer, D. (1987). Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI), H. and H., Clearwater, FL.Google Scholar
  69. Wilson, K. L., Smart, R. M., and Watson, R. J. (1996). Gender differences in approaches to learning in first year psychology students. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 66: 59–71.Google Scholar
  70. Wolters, C. A. (1998). Self-regulated learning and college students’ regulation of motivation. J. Educ. Psychol. 90: 224–235.Google Scholar
  71. Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). Models of self-regulated learning and academic achievement. In Zimmerman, B. J., and Schunk, D. H. (eds.), Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement: Theory, Research and Practice, Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 1–26.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Noel Entwistle
  • Velda McCune

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations