Age, Maturity and Gender, and the Propensity towards Surface and Deep Learning Approaches amongst University Students


The approach that a student takes towards their study has a substantial impact on the quality of their learning and academic success—a deep rather than surface approach more likely to be associated with academic success. Using the validated study processes questionnaire developed by Biggs et al. (2001), this study surveys over 500 undergraduate students across one university to examine patterns of learning approaches against age, maturity and gender. Analysis indicates that age is important in terms of the tendency towards adopting a deep or surface learning approach; mature age students are more likely to adopt a deep learning approach and less likely to adopt a surface approach. There are no significant differences in deep or surface approach scores between genders. However, in relation to maturity, both mature age males and females score a statistically higher score on deep motive compared to usual age females. However, this is not the case for usual age males, with no significant difference found. This same pattern also occurred for the deep strategy subscale component. Mature males and females, as well being more motivated to adopt deep learning approaches, undertake strategies that are more likely to lead to a higher scale scores compared to usual age females but not usual age males.

Share and Cite:

Lake, W. and Boyd, W. (2015) Age, Maturity and Gender, and the Propensity towards Surface and Deep Learning Approaches amongst University Students. Creative Education, 6, 2361-2371. doi: 10.4236/ce.2015.622242.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] Astin, A. W. (1984). Student Involvement: A Developmental Theory for Higher Education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 297-308.
[2] Baeten, M., Kyndt, E., Struyven, K., & Dochy, F. (2010). Using Student-Centred Learning Environments to Stimulate Deep Approaches to Learning: Factors Encouraging or Discouraging Their Effectiveness. Educational Research Review, 5, 243-260.
[3] Biggs, J. (1987a). Study Process Questionnaire. Hawthorn: ACER.
[4] Biggs, J. (1987b). Student Approaches to Learning and Studying. Research Monograph, Australian Council for Educational Research, Hawthorn.
[5] Biggs, J. (1999). What the Student Does: Teaching for Enhanced Learning. Higher Education Research & Development, 18, 57-75.
[6] Biggs, J. (Ed.). (1991). Teaching for Learning: The View from Cognitive Psychology/Edited by John B. Biggs. Hawthorn: Australian Council for Educational Research.
[7] Biggs, J., Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. (2001). The Revised Two-Factor Study Process Questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 133-149.
[8] Burns, A., Scott, C., & Cooney, G. (1993). Higher Education of Single and Married Mothers. Higher Education Research & Development, 12, 189-206.
[9] Canning, N. (2010). Playing with Heutagogy: Exploring Strategies to Empower Mature Learners in Higher Education. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 34, 59-71.
[10] Case, J., & Marshall, D. (2004). Between Deep and Surface: Procedural Approaches to Learning in Engineering Education Contexts. Studies in Higher Education, 29, 605-615.
[11] Clayton, K., Blumberg, F., & Auld, D. P. (2010). The Relationship between Motivation, Learning Strategies and Choice of Environment Whether Traditional or Including an Online Component. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41, 349-364.
[12] Cofeld, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004). Learning Styles and Pedagogy in Post-16 Learning. A Systematic and Critical Review. UK: The Learning and Skills Research Centre (LRSC).
[13] Diseth, Å., Pallesen, S., Brunborg, G. S., & Larsen, S. (2010). Academic Achievement among First Semester Undergraduate Psychology Students: The Role of Course Experience, Effort, Motives and Learning Strategies. Higher Education, 59, 335-352.
[14] Diseth, Å., & Kobbeltvedt, T. (2010). A Mediation Analysis of Achievement Motives, Goals, Learning Strategies, and Academic Achievement. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 671-687.
[15] Diseth, Å. (2003). Personality and Approaches to Learning as Predictors of Academic Achievement. European Journal of Personality, 17, 143-155.
[16] 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.
[17] Freeth, D., & Reeves, S. (2004). Learning to Work Together: Using the Presage, Process, Product (3P) Model to Highlight Decisions and Possibilities. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 18, 43-56.
[18] Fulmer, A., & Jenkins, H. I. (1992). Evaluating a Tertiary Access Program for Mature Age Women. Higher Education Research & Development, 11, 45-60.
[19] Gow, L., & Kember, D. (1990). Does Higher Education Promote Independent Learning? Higher Education, 19, 307-322.
[20] Gremli, J. (2003). Impact of Learning-Style Strategies on Music Education. In R. Dunn, & S. Griggs (Eds.), Synthesis of the Dunnand Dunn Learning Styles Model Research: Who, What, When, Where and So What—The Dunn and Dunn Learning Styles Model and Its Theoretical Cornerstone (pp. 111-114). New York: St John’s University.
[21] Greene, A. (2015). Measuring Cognitive Engagement with Self-Report Scales: Reflections from over 20 Years of Research. Educational Psychologist, 50, 14-30.
[22] Holley, D., & Oliver, M. (2010). Student Engagement and Blended Learning: Portaits of Risk. Computers & Education, 54, 693-700.
[23] James, R., Krause, K., & Jennings, C. (2010). The First Year Experience in Australian Universities: Findings from 1994 to 2009. Melbourne: Centre for the Study of Higher Education, The University of Melbourne, 81 p.
[24] Johnson, G. M. (2015). On-Campus and Fully-Online University Students: Comparing Demographics, Digital Technology Use and Learning Characteristics. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 12.
[25] Jiao, X. (2005). Factors Influencing Students’ Approaches to Learning: A Case Study of Postgraduate Students at a New Zealand University. Auckland: Auckland University of Technology.
[26] Kovacic, Z. (2010). Early Prediction of Student Success: Mining Students’ Enrolment Data. Proceedings of the Informing Science and Information Technology Education Joint Conference, Cassino, 19-24 June 2010, 647-665.
[27] Marton, F., & S äljö, R. (1984). Approaches to Learning. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell, & N. Entwistle (Eds.), The Experience of Learning (pp. 39-58). Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.
[28] Merriam, S. B., Caffarella, R. S., & Baumgartner, L. M. (2012). Learning in Adulthood: A Comprehensive Guide. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
[29] Opfer, V. D., & Pedder, D. (2011). Conceptualizing Teacher Professional Learning. Review of Educational Research, 81, 376-407.
[30] Paraeswaran, M. (1991). A Comparison of the Academic Success of Mature Age and Traditional Entrants at the Victorian College of Agriculture and Horticulture-Dookie Campus.
[31] Pyke, S. M., Porter-Dabrowski, C., & Williamson, N. M. (2014). Impact of Student Approaches to Learning on Both Their Experience and Their Performance in Problem Solving Workshop Classes: A Pilot Study. Proceedings of the Australian Conference on Science and Mathematics Education, Sydney, 29 September-1 October 2014, 75.
[32] Power, C. N., Robertson, F., & Baker, M. (1987). Success in Higher Education. Commonwealth Tertiary Education, Commission, Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
[33] Regan, J. (1996). First-Year Southern Cross University Students’ Approaches to Learning and Studying: A Replication Study. Master’s Thesis, Lismore: Southern Cross University.
[34] Richardson, J. (1994). Mature Students in Higher Education: I. A Literature Survey on Approaches to Studying. Studies in Higher Education, 19, 309-325.
[35] Ross-Gordon, J. M. (2011). Research on Adult Learners: Supporting the Needs of a Student Population That Is No Longer Nontraditional. Peer Review, 13, 26-29.
[36] Salisbury, F., & Karasmanis, S. (2011). Are They Ready? Exploring Student Information Literacy Skills in the Transition from Secondary to Tertiary Education. Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 42, 43-58.
[37] Sherry, M., Thomas, P., & Chui, W. H. (2010). International Students: A Vulnerable Student Population. Higher Education, 60, 33-46.
[38] Socha, A., & Sigler, E. A. (2014). Exploring and “Reconciling” the Factor Structure for the Revised Two-Factor Study Process Questionnaire. Learning and Individual Differences, 31, 43-50.
[39] Thomas, L. (2011). Do Pre-Entry Interventions Such as “Aim Higher” Impact on Student Retention and Success? A Review of the Literature. Higher Education Quarterly, 65, 230-250.
[40] Toohey, S. (1999). Designing Courses for Higher Education. Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
[41] Vanthournount, G., Donche, V., Gijbels, D., & Petegem, V. (2014). (Dis)similarities in Research on Learning Approaches and Learning Patterns. In D. Gijbels, V. Donche, J. Richardson, & S. Griggs (Eds.), Learning Patterns in Higher Education: Dimensions and Research Perspectives (pp. 11-32). London and New York: Routledge.
[42] Vuong, M., Brown-Welty, S., & Tracz, S. (2010). The Effects of Self-Efficacy on Academic Success of First-Generation College Sophomore Students. Journal of College Student Development, 51, 50-64.
[43] Watkins, D., & Hattie, J. (1985). A Longitudinal Study of the Approaches to Learning of Australian Tertiary Students. Human Learning: Journal of Practical Research & Applications, 4, 127-141.
[44] Whittle, S. R., Pell, G., & Eaton, D. (2010). Recent Changes to Students’ Perceptions of Their Key Skills on Entry to Higher Education. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 34, 557-570.
[45] Zeegers, P. (2001). Approaches to Learning in Science: A Longitudinal Study. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 115-132.

Copyright © 2021 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.