The Relationship between Students’ Approach to Learning and Lifelong Learning

doi:10.4236/psych.2013.411113

Paper Menu >>

Journal Menu >>

Psychology

2013. Vol.4, No.11, 792-797

Published Online November 2013 in SciRes (http://www.scirp.org/journal/psych) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/psych.2013.411113

Open Access

792

The Relationship between Students’ Approach to Learning and

Lifelong Learning

Rita Barros1, Angélica Monteiro1, Fouad Nejmedinne1, José António Moreira2

1Instituto Piaget/Universidade Jean Piaget, Praia, Cape Verde

2Department of Education and Distance Teaching, Open University, Lisbon, Portugal

Email: jmoreira@uab.pt

Received July 29th, 2013; revised August 31st, 2013; accepted October 1st, 2013

tribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the

original work is properly cited.

The current investigation proposes to analyse the relationship between learning, from the appropriation

students’ make of the different ways of learning and studying, and their willingness to be involved in life-

long learning (LL) activities. The theoretical rationale is inscribed in the Biggs’ Theory (1987), concern-

ing the student’s approach to learning, and under the guiding principle of LL. The concept of LL has been

understood and formalised in a distinct way, translated into different educational policies, the practices of

which must be empirically supported. We present a correlational study, with a sample of 163 Higher

Education students. The approaches to learning were supported by the revised two-factor study process

questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F). To evaluate the involvement of students in LL activities, the contents of some

items of the Lifelong Learning Questionnaire (Kirby, Knapper, Lamon, & Egnatoff, 2010) were used. The

results obtained in the correlational analysis allow us to associate the deep approach to some characteris-

tics of learners throughout their life, especially concerning the establishing of goals and the self-direction

of learning, whereas the superficial approach is mainly associated with the adaptation of learning strate-

gies. The practical implications of these results are discussed below.

Keywords: Higher Education; Learning Styles; Lifelong Learning

Introduction

Learning is one of important themes explored in the multiple

theoretical perspectives of Psychology. Our research focuses on

learning in adulthood, whose characteristics involve particular

cognitive and motivational aspects that seem interesting to

some areas of psychology. Cognitive Psychology (Sternberg &

Grigorenko, 2000), Educational Psychology and Developmen-

tal Psychology (Smith & Pourchot, 1998) are good examples.

At same time, several authors in the area of Education, specifi-

cally those focused on the Education of youngsters and adults,

seek to understand the study processes and learning concepts of

these students (Biggs, 1987, 1993; Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983).

Biggs, Kember and Leung (2001), based on the model pres-

age-process-product (3P), have developed a more simplified

version of the instrument student process questionnaire (Biggs,

1987) for the understanding of study processes and approaches

to learning, the revised two-factor study process questionnaire

(R-SPQ-2F).

This instrument evaluates the relationship between student

characteristics and education context, their approach to learning

tasks and learning results. The approach to learning, according

to the authors (idem: 135), can be superficial, deep or high per-

formance and involve different motivations and strategies.

In this article, we seek to relate the different approaches to

learning in higher education students and their willingness to

become involved in Lifelong Learning (LL) activities.

LL, understood as a paradigm emerging within the context of

a society of knowledge and information, offers the possibility

of looking at educational phenomena in a different way, and has

facilitated the emergence of a frame of mind valuing the learn-

ing accomplished by people within personal, social and profes-

sional fields (Pires, 2007).

Lifelong Learning, simultaneously translating into a political

agenda and a research field, requires a reflection focused on

this articulation. The contributions of research on this subject,

with an impact on political processes and learning practices,

must offer a critical analysis of their social contextualization, as

well as possible projections of what Lifelong Learning could

become (Preece, 2011; UNESCO, 2010), considering that the

future of Lifelong Learning still holds important ambiguities and

questions (Jarvis, 2010).

Theoretical Frame of Reference

Approaches to Higher Education Learning

Biggs et al. (2001) present a systemic version of the students’

approaches to learning, through the Presage-Process-Product

(3P) model. Within this model, results may influence the ap-

proaches to tasks, and these may influence the context of edu-

cation and the factors more directly related to students.

According to Biggs (1987), the main differentiating factor of

learning results is not the cognition ability but the using of dif-

ferent study processes depending on “approaches to learning”.

These approaches can be classified as superficial, deep and stra-

R. BARROS ET AL.

tegic or high-performance.

The superficial approach concerns an attitude based on the

“minimum possible effort”, that is, when faced with learning,

the student is not interested in understanding it or developing it

(…). This approach is, therefore, reproductive and marked by

extrinsic motivation and fear of failure.

The deep approach is oriented by the intention of the student

to face in depth the task or the content to be learned. For that,

high level cognition abilities are used, such as syntheses, ana-

lyses, comparisons and confrontations, and even the cultural and

cognitive repertoire is used, helping these students to achieve a

transforming and creative level.

The strategic or high-performance approach is based on the

intention of obtaining the maximum efficiency or the best clas-

sifications through the intrinsic motivations of the subject.

Lifelong Learning

The approach to the paradigm of Lifelong Learning guides

the discourses and educational practices of today, based on the

policies of the three main intergovernmental organizations with

activities in this field, namely the Council of Europe, the United

Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

(UNESCO) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation

and Development (OECD). In fact, the problematization of life-

long learning has been constant in the last few decades, and its

discursive and operational translation, in terms of educational

policies, has been marked by diversity and discontinuity. Where-

as the programmes of the Council of Europe and UNESCO are

based on universal values of peace, equality, interculturality, di-

versity and human rights, that is, a humanistic view of educa-

tion, OECD, because of its nature and history, has focused on

education’s economic benefits and potential and its functional-

ist side (Centeno, 2011).

The experience of UNESCO and the European Union shows

that the general goals defined by international organizations have

been globally ignored by the educational systems of different

countries, but also allows us to conclude that statistical goals,

seen as monitoring indications, do not guarantee the achieve-

ment of objectives by those same educational systems (Jallade,

2011).

In conclusion, Lifelong Learning has tensions and contradic-

tions, with consequences on political choices, educational prac-

tices and theoretical-scientific priorities.

Method

Objectives

Our study has a quantitative, correlational and cross-cutting

nature, and its main goal is to understand the relationship of

approaches to learning with age and the tendency/inclination to

become involved in LL activities.

Considering that lifelong learner’s characteristics involves

establishment of goals, application of knowledge and skills,

self-direction and evaluation, location of information and adap-

tation of learning strategies (Knapper & Cropley, 2000), our

hypothesis is that exists a positive and significant relationships

between those characteristics and deep learning approach.

Participants

The sample is constituted by 163 students from higher edu-

cation, 37 males (22.7%) and 126 females (77.3%). Most of the

respondents (89.6%) attend first cycle studies, granting a uni-

versity degree, 6.7% attend Master’s and 3.7% attend post-gra-

duations. The average age is 26.6 years, with a standard devia-

tion of 8.7, a minimum age of 18 and a maximum of 61. Regar-

ding the area of training, 97 of the cohort are in Education

(59.5%), 62 in Health (38%) and 4 are in other areas (2.5%).

With respect to the employment situation, 83 are exclusively

students (50.9%) and 77 are working students (47.2%). Three

of the respondents (1.8%) claim to be in another situation.

The sampling technique was non-probabilistic and, as such,

students were selected by convenience, particularly by easy ac-

cessibility, being guaranteed anonymity and the individual con-

fidentiality of the results.

Instruments

The survey is split into three parts. The first part focuses on

social-demographic aspects, namely age, gender, education le-

vel, education area (Education/Health) and professional status.

This section also includes a question about the perception stu-

dents have about their academic performance, categorized ac-

cording to the ECTS classification scale, inscribed in the Euro-

pean Credit Transfer System, supporting the Bologna Declara-

tion (DGES, s/d).

In the second part of the survey, in order to evaluate the in-

volvement of students in LL activities, we were inspired by 10

of the 14 items included in the Lifelong Learning Questionnaire,

by Kirby, Knapper, Lamon, & Egnatoff (2010). The items used

are based on the lifelong characteristics of the learner, defined

by Knapper and Cropley (2000), namely the establishing of

goals, the application of knowledge and skills, self-direction

and evaluation, search for information and adaptation to learn-

ing strategies. According to the authors, the scale evaluates the

tendency/inclination of adults to LL, which results from the

combination of prematurely defined features and situational

factors taking place at a later stage, making it necessary to fo-

cus on those features and situations and realize how they can be

manipulated in a desirable sense. The items are evaluated in a

5-point Likert-type scale, from “I completely disagree” (−2) to

“I completely agree” (+ 2).

The approaches to learning were evaluated in the third part of

the survey by the Portuguese translation of the Brazilian-vali-

dated scale Revised two-factor Study Process Questionnaire

(R-SPQ-2F, performed by Godoy (2009). In this validation for

the Portuguese language, the original scale was initially subject

to translation and retro-translation processes. Its final version is

constituted by 20 items, evaluated in a 5-point Likert-type scale,

from “never” (1) to “always” (5), grouped in 4 sub-scales: deep

motivation, deep strategy, superficial motivation and superficial

strategy. There is a linear, positive and significant correlation

between deep motivation and deep strategy and between super-

ficial motivation and superficial strategy (moderate and low, re-

spectively). Low linear, negative and statistically significant cor-

relations are found between deep and superficial motivation and

between deep and superficial strategy.

The values of internal consistency, evaluated by Cronbach’s

alpha, are compatible with those in the original scale, regarding

deep approach (α = .76), and even superior regarding superfi-

cial learning (α = .74). The internal consistency and validity of

criteria reveal the good psychometric qualities of the instrument.

The same may be said about the construct validity, supported

Open Access 793

R. BARROS ET AL.

by the confirmatory factor analysis, performed according to the

Structural Equation Model (SEM). Thus, the structure of the

reviewed version shows two non-hierarchical factors, distin-

guishing the deep approach from the superficial approach, each

of them comprised by ten items. The results of this validation

meet the results of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis

carried out in other studies, namely in Spain (Justicia, Pichardo,

Cano, Berbén, & De la Fuente, 2008) and reveal a very satis-

factory adjustment in view of the original model.

Given the above, it seemed suitable to use this instrument in

the Portuguese language in order to evaluate the approaches to

learning in Higher Education students.

Procedures

The items in the Lifelong Learning Questionnaire (Kirby,

Knapper, Lamon, & Egnatoff, 2010) were selected according to

the following requirements:

 2 items for each characteristic of the learner throughout

his/her life, according to Knapper and Cropley (2000), gi-

ven that the characteristics with less items integrate pre-

cisely two;

 a balance in the number of items per characteristic;

 the easiness in terms of fulfilment of the linguistic and cul-

tural equivalents underlying the Portuguese translation.

Concerns regarding the linguistic and cultural equivalence

have supported the Portuguese translation of the Brazilian-va-

lidated scale Revised two-factor Study Process Questionnaire

(R-SPQ-2F).

After defining the data collection survey, the students were

asked to complete the online questionnaire, being guaranteed

anonymity and the individual confidentiality of the results.

Analysis of Dat a

The statistical analysis was performed through the SPSS—

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences—version 19.0, and

the procedures were accomplished through inferential statistics.

The correlational analyses were performed based on Pearson’s

linear correlation coefficient. All results were considered statis-

tically significant for a confidence interval of 95% (Marôco &

Bispo, 2005).

Findings

Relationship between Approache s to Learn i ng a nd

Age

Pearson’s coefficient points to a negative (r = −.173) and sta-

tistically significant (p = .027) correlation between deep learn-

ing and age, indicating that, as age progresses, students in hi-

gher education are less likely to resort to deep learning. There

isn’t a significant correlation between age and superficial learn-

ing.

The adoption of a more superficial strategy by students as

age progresses may, once again, be related to the multiplicity of

roles performed by older students.

The social demands associated with young adults are distinct

from those they face in a mature adulthood (Erikson, 1963),

with implications in terms of investment in the different tasks

and consequent time management.

These results differ from those presented by Biggs and Kirby

(1983), since these authors show that pre-university students

reveal lower levels of deep approach, when compared with uni-

versity students. However, this difference in results can be jus-

tified by the social-cultural and historical context of the stu-

dents involved.

Relationship between Approache s to Learn i ng a nd

Table 1 shows the statistically significant correlations be-

tween the approaches to learning and the items relating to the

characteristics of the learner throughout his life, defined by

Knapper and Cropley (2000), namely:

A) Establishment of goals

B) Application of knowledge and skills

C) Self-direction and evaluation

D) Location of information

E) Adaptation of learning strategies

Relationship between Approache s to Learn i ng a nd

the Establishing of Goals

Table 1 shows a positive correlation between the statement

“I love learning for its own sake” and deep learning, in its mo-

tivational and strategic components.

In students who love “to learn for its own sake” (item 9),

deep learning involves not only intrinsic motivation, aimed at

learning for its own sake, but also the examination of strategic

processes to be implemented. If students do not identify extrin-

sic reinforcement, they also miss this perception, which justifies

their negative correlation with the superficial strategy.

On the other hand, for students who show a deep learning,

focusing on details does not invalidate the existence of a mac-

roscopic vision of the learning content. Nevertheless, it implies

a more detailed strategy, and therefore more developed in its

analysis, translating into the positive correlation with the deep

strategy. Valadares and Moreira (2009) support this idea as they

articulate the processes of progressive differentiation and inte-

grative or inclusive reconciliation with significant learning.

Relationship between Approache s to Learn i ng a nd

Application of Knowledge and Skills

The attribution of meaning, evaluated by item 5, implies the

articulation and coherence between the countless information

and knowledge supporting deep learning. This articulation is

only possible by resorting to deep strategies.

The negative correlation between the articulation of new sub-

jects to be learned from previous knowledge (item 12) and deep

motivation, combined with the positive correlation with super-

ficial motivation and strategy, can be explained by the under-

standing students have of it. In fact, it is possible that students

showing deep motivation understand the relationship with pre-

viously acquired subjects as a limitation to the exploration of

new contents. On the other hand, this relationship may be seen

as a learning strategy to be maximised, especially when the in-

vestment in the learning task is limited and when the student is

more focused on the results than on the learning processes, or

on the learning itself.

Relationship between Approache s to Learn i ng a nd

Self-Direction and Evaluation

Learning evaluation can be combined with issues of auto-

Open Access

794

R. BARROS ET AL.

Open Access 795

Table 1.

Correlations between LL and the approaches to learning and its dimensions (motivational and strategic).

Student’s Approach to Learning (SAL)

Lifelong Learning (LL)

DL DM DS SL SM SS

I love learning for its own sake .375*** .186*.406*** −.158 *

A When I learn something new, I try to focus

on the details rather than on the “big picture” .312*** .350***

I am able to impose meaning upon what others see as disorder .188* .254**

When I approach new material, I try to relate it to what I already know −.18* −.223** .318*** .204** .246**

I feel others are in a better position than I am to evaluate my success as a student−.183* −.267** .347*** .31*** .261**

It is my responsibility to make sense of what I learn at school .206** −.186*

I try to relate academic learning to practical issues .309*** .16* .329***

I often find it difficult to locate information when I need it .318*** .247** .274***

I can deal with the unexpected and solve problems as they arise .256** .265** .157*

I feel uncomfortable under conditions of uncertainty −.208** .344*** .34*** .227**

Note: *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

nomy, self-direction and self-regulation. The positive correla-

tion found between favouring hetero-evaluation and superficial

learning, both from motivational and strategic points of view,

implies external attributions.

By delegating on others responsibility to evaluate (item 8)

success in learning, students may, in case of failure, build de-

fence mechanisms for the protection of the self (Fontaine,

1990). For students with a deep approach to learning, the issue

of the evaluation only arises on a strategic level, as revealed by

the negative correlation observed. Causal attributions (internal

or external) justify, not only the learning evaluation, but also

the responsibility it entails (item 13).

In this regard, Biggs et al. (2001) mention that teaching and

evaluation methods often encourage the superficial approach, if

not properly aligned with the education objectives.

Relationship between Approache s to Learn i ng a nd

Location of Information

Table 1 shows a positive correlation between the deep ap-

proach (motivation and strategy) and the statement “I try to re-

late academic learning to practical issues”. On the other hand,

we find a negative correlation between the superficial approach

(motivation and strategy) and the statement “I often find it dif-

ficult to locate information when I need it”.

Students investing in learning in a developed way transfer

“articulately the thinking strategies used in a given context, as

well as other knowledge generated from these, to others. Trans-

ference is the basis of knowledge accumulation and human

learning, especially determining the possibility of, from what is

already known (contents, strategies, abilities, etc.), articulating

it in another way, reaching new solutions, conclusions and ideas”

(Davis, Nunes, & Nunes, 2005: p. 210). Therefore, they relate

academic learning to practical matters (item 10). This concern

demands not only an intrinsic motivation in learning, but also

strategies that facilitate the relationship mentioned.

Deep investment in learning causes transversal skills to de-

velop, mainly the abilities of information selection, analysis,

synthesis. The development of these skills facilitates the search

for information supporting the learning process. Thus, it is un-

derstood that students with a superficial approach (both from

motivational and strategic points of view), not having the op-

portunity to develop these skills, share a perception of difficulty

in finding information when they need it (item 11).

Relationship between Approache s to Learn i ng a nd

Adaptation of Learning Strategies

The positive correlation between the superficial approach and

the statement “I can deal with the unexpected and solve prob-

lems as they arise” can be explained by the fact that in superfi-

cial approach the investment of the student is smaller.

In this context, we realize that the student builds a self-per-

ception of the ability to deal with the unexpected (item 3), even

if the result of its action is debatable, or even inappropriate. In

fact, by focusing on the results of the learning, procedural and

methodological matters, which ensure safety in the action, these

matters end up not being considered as very important.

Concerning item 4, discomfort facing uncertainty situations,

this is positively correlated with superficial learning and nega-

tively correlated with deep strategy.

If, in deep approach, uncertainty can be a challenge to the

adoption of deep learning strategies, in superficial approach it is

common for students to face situations in which they are unsure

about the efficiency of their knowledge and skills in order to

solve these situations.

“Feeling comfortable dealing with uncertainty” is directly re-

lated to metacognitive processes, such as, the decision making

process in extremely complex situations, very common today,

in which there is a dynamic and constantly changing environ-

ment (Rosenhead & Mingers, 2001).

Conclusion and Recommendations

With the purpose of analysing the different approaches to

learning among higher education students and their willingness

to be involved in LL activities, we have conducted this compa-

rative and correlational study.

R. BARROS ET AL.

More specifically, the goals of this study were as follows: 1)

to compare how students seize the different ways of learning

and studying according to their perception of academic perfor-

mance, training area and professional status (student versus

working student), and 2) to know the relationships between

approaches to learning and age and tendency/inclination to be-

come involved in LL activities.

Regarding the comparison between the approaches to learn-

ing and the students’ characteristics, we see that the main dif-

ferences, where applicable, concern the strategies used. Where-

as the approaches are not distinguished according to the percep-

tion of the academic performance, the strategic dimension dif-

fers according to the training area and professional status of the

student.

Concerning the relationship between the approaches to learn-

ing and age, in our study, the older students tend to resort to

more superficial approaches, particularly in their strategic com-

ponent. It seems, as mentioned above, that this result can be ex-

plained by the demands of daily life and the assuming of simul-

taneous tasks for which fast and efficient solutions are required.

There is yet another important factor to consider, as mention-

ed by Bigg et al. (2001): the teaching strategies and evaluation

methods can force the students to choose strategies inscribed in

a superficial approach.

As for the relationship between the approaches to learning

and the tendency/inclination for students to become involved in

LL activities, this was grouped according to the lifelong char-

acteristics of the learner, namely: establishment of goals; ap-

plication of knowledge and skills; self-direction and evaluation;

location of information and adaptation of learning strategies.

Concerning the establishment of goals, the love of learning

for its own sake, positively correlated with deep learning, is re-

lated to the intrinsic motivation and emotional value the subject

confers to the learning itself. In turn, the ability to articulate a

macroscopic vision of learning contents with the details deman-

ded by deep learning reveals operational skills far beyond the

instrumentality of the know-how.

Regarding the application of knowledge and skills, there is a

tendency for the superficial approach to “maximise” already de-

veloped knowledge and skills in the resolution of new challeng-

es.

Concerning self-direction and evaluation, the choice for more

superficial approaches is related to the responsibility of the

other. In the case of students investing in deep learning, there is

greater individual control, which translates into self-regulated

learning. This learning includes mental processes and learning

strategies, in which students become deliberately involved to

improve their learning and their performance. The sensed self-

competence and autonomy, the orientation for the task and the

learning environment in the classroom interfere with the intrin-

sic motivation.

Location of information is a skill which depends on how it is

selected and accessed, as well as on the ability to relate the

learning to practical matters. We see that the students likely to

show a superficial approach find it more difficult to locate in-

formation. This is a cross-cutting skill, just like the application

of knowledge in solving practical problems, which, as a whole,

constitutes a “common denominator existing either in acquired

knowledge beyond subjects and areas or in cognitive activities

of learning” (Pacheco, 2011: p. 49).

Finally, concerning the adaptation of learning strategies, we

see that students who tend to adopt a superficial approach seem

to be more able to deal with the unexpected, although they feel

uncomfortable in situations of uncertainty, contrary to what was

shown in the strategic dimension of deep learning.

Studying the relationships between approaches to learning

and some lifelong characteristics of the learner has allowed us

to equate some possible practical implications for the formal

contexts of higher education, which we will now mention:

 Considering that superficial and deep learning are not mu-

tually exclusive or deterministic, it becomes the job of the

educational agents to promote a context facilitating signifi-

cant learning, characteristic of a more deep approach. In

this sense, Biggs et al. (2001) mention that the presence of a

more superficial approach may indicate that something is

wrong with the teaching and evaluation methods chosen by

the teachers (Biggs et al., 2001).

 The stimulus to the establishment of relationships and re-

signification of contents, inherent to deep learning, is essen-

tial to the implementation of transferences. This transfer-

ence enables to “deliberately extend abilities and postures

into other scenarios, helping students to think about their

ideas, articulating them with those conveyed in other sub-

jects, and applying them in both school and non-school con-

texts” (Davis, Nunes, & Nunes, 2005: p. 210) where LL ac-

tivities are included.

 The “I love learning for its own sake” is not necessarily a

pre-determined condition. The cyclic model of the “3P”

exemplifies the interdependence of every element compris-

ing the teaching and learning process. This way, by pro-

moting an environment conducive to learning, the teacher is

able to gradually inspire this love and stimulate the autono-

mous processes of discovery, typical of a self-regulated

learning.

 This plasticity to be experienced within a formal context in

higher education may reflect in the willingness shown by

students to become involved in activities throughout their

lives. From this point of view, educating higher education

students and guiding them towards deep approaches can re-

present a significant contribution to this purpose.

 Responding to challenges imposing on today’s society, life-

long learning becomes imperative.

REFERENCES

Biggs, J., Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. (2001). The revise two-factor

study process questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. British Journal of Education

Psychology, 71, 133-149.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/000709901158433

Biggs, J. (1993). From theory to practice: A cognitive systems approach.

Higher Education Research and Development, 12, 73-86.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0729436930120107

Biggs J. B. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Aus-

tralian council for educ a t ional research. Hawthorn: Victoria.

Biggs, J. B., & Kirby, J. R. (1983). Approaches to learning in universi-

ties and CAEs. Vestes, 27, 3-9.

Centeno, V. (2011). Lifelong learning: A policy with a long past but a

short history. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 30, 133-

150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2010.547616

Davis, C., Nunes, Marina, M. R., & Nunes, C. A. A. (2005). Metacog-

nição e sucesso escolar: Articulando teoria e prática. Cadernos de

Pesquisa, 35, 205-230.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0100-15742005000200011

DGES (2013). ECTS: European credit transfer system.

http://tinyurl.com/bfbkqpv

Entwistle, N. (2010). Taking stock: An overview of key research find-

Open Access

796

R. BARROS ET AL.

Open Access 797

ings. In J. Christensen Hughes, & J. Mighty (Eds.), Taking stock: Re-

search on teaching and learning in higher education (pp. 15-57).

Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queens University Press.

Entwistle, N., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning.

London: Croom Helm.

Erikson, E. (1963). Childhood and society. New York: WW Norton &

Company.

Fontaine. A. M. (1990). Motivação e realização escolar. In B. P. Cam-

pos (Ed.), Psicologia do desenvolvimento e da educação de Jovens

(pp. 93-132). Lisboa: Universidade Aberta.

Garrison, D. (1997). Self-directed learning: Toward a comprehensive

model. Adult Education Quarterly, 48, 18-33.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/074171369704800103

Godoy, S. (2009). Validação para o Brasil da escala revised two-fac-

tor study process questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F). Ph.D. Thesis, São Pau-

lo: São Paulo University.

Jallade, J.-P. (2011). International approaches to education: A review of

some major cooperative programmes. European Journal of Educa-

tion, 46, 7-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-3435.2010.01469.x

Jarvis, P. (2010). Inquiry journal of lifelong education. International

Journal of Lifelong Education, 29, 397-400.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2010.488802

Justicia, F., Pichardo, M., Cano, F., Berben, A., & De la Fuente, J.

(2008). The revised two factor study process questionnaire (R-SPQ-

2F): exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses at item level. Eu-

ropean Journal of Psychology of Education, 23, 355-372.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03173004

Kirby, J., Knapper, C., Lamon, P., & Egnatoff, W. (2010). Develop-

ment of a scale to measure lifelong education. International Journal

of Lifelong Education, 29, 291-302.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02601371003700584

Knapper, C. K., & Cropley, A. (2000). Lifelong learning in higher edu-

cation. London: Kogan Page.

Marôco, J., & Bispo, R. (2005). Estatística aplicada às ciências sociais

e humanas. Lisboa: Climepsi.

Pacheco, J. (2011). Discursos e lugares das competências em contexto

de educação e formação. Porto: Porto Editora.

Pires, A. (2007). Reconhecimento e validação das aprendizagens expe-

rienciais. Sí sif o/ Revista de Ciências da Educação, 2, 5-19.

Preece, J. (2011). Research in adult education and lifelong learning in

the era of CONFINTEA VI. International Journal of Lifelong Edu-

cation, 30, 99-117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2011.538180

Rosenhead, J., & Mingers, J. (2001). Rational analysis for a problema-

tic world: problem structuring methods for complexity, uncertainty

and conflit. West Sussex: John Willey & Sons.

Smith, M., & Pourchot, T. (1998). Adult learning and development:

Perspectives from educational psychology. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Sternberg, R. (2009). Cognitive psychology (5th ed.). Belmont: Wads-

worth.

Sternberg, R., & Grigorenko, E. (2000). Teaching for successful intel-

ligence. Arlington Heights, IL: Skylight.

UNESCO (2010). Relatório global sobre aprendizagem e educação de

adultos. Brasília: Instituto da UNESCO para a Aprendizagem ao Lon-

go da Vida (UIL).

Vasconcelos, R., Almeida, L., & Monteiro, S. (2005). Métodos de estu-

do em alunos do 1˚ ano da universidade-métodos de estudo na Uni-

versidade. Psicolo gi a Escolar e Educacional, 9, 195-202.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1413-85572005000200002

Valadares, J., & Moreira, M. (2009). A teoria da aprendizagem signifi-

cativa: Sua fundamentação e imp le m en ta çã o . Coimbra: Almedina.

Young, M. (2005). The motivational effects of the classroom environ-

ment in facilitating self-regulated learning. Journal of Marketing Edu-

cation, 27, 25-40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0273475304273346