This article was downloaded by: [Florida State University]On: 17 October 2014, At: 10:46Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Educational StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceds20

Effects of learning approaches, locus ofcontrol, socio-economic status and self-efficacy on academic achievement: aTurkish perspectiveNilgün Suphi a & Hüseyin Yaratan aa Department of Educational Sciences , Eastern MediterraneanUniversity , Gazimağusa , TurkeyPublished online: 15 Dec 2011.

To cite this article: Nilgün Suphi & Hüseyin Yaratan (2012) Effects of learning approaches, locus ofcontrol, socio-economic status and self-efficacy on academic achievement: a Turkish perspective,Educational Studies, 38:4, 419-431, DOI: 10.1080/03055698.2011.643107

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2011.643107

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Effects of learning approaches, locus of control, socio-economicstatus and self-efficacy on academic achievement: a Turkishperspective

Nilgün Suphi* and Hüseyin Yaratan

Department of Educational Sciences, Eastern Mediterranean University, Gazimağusa,Turkey

(Received 4 August 2011; final version received 6 November 2011)

In this study the effects of learning approaches, locus of control (LOC), socio-economic status and self-efficacy on undergraduate students in North Cypruswas investigated. Four questionnaires were administered on 99 students in orderto collect data regarding the learning approaches, LOC, self-efficacy and demo-graphic factors. High cumulative grade point average and self-efficacy wereshown to be an indicator of academic achievement and high self-efficacy wasrelated to the use of deep approach (DA). Students, whose mothers had lowerlevels of education, were found to also predict academic success. No direct sig-nificant relationship between DA and academic achievement was found.

Keywords: learning approaches; locus of control; socio-economic status; self-efficacy; academic achievement

1. Introduction and purpose

As more and more students from diverse backgrounds enrol into university eachyear (Zhao, Kuh, and Carini 2005), problems of underachievement have becomeinevitable. Research into what factors have an effect on academic achievement havebeen ongoing for more than 30 years and until a decade ago many of these studieswere conducted on university students mainly in developed countries.

Turkey, a rapidly developing country, is trying to cater for the increasing desire ofstudents wanting to pursue higher education. The seven universities situated in NorthCyprus are part of universities the Turkish students can choose to study in. Issuesregarding academic achievement are becoming more and more prominent in this partof the world as universities, in order to compete with each other, are lowering theiradmission requirements.

Findings of research on factors contributing to academic achievement in devel-oped countries are important in shedding light on this matter but it is essential thatsimilar studies are conducted on the population in question in order to take intoconsideration their background and cultural aspects. Therefore, the aim of this studyis to assess the relationship between learning approaches, locus of control (LOC),demographic factors, self-efficacy and academic achievement on Turkish studentsboth from Turkey and North Cyprus.

*Corresponding author. Email: nilgun.suphi@emu.edu.tr

Educational StudiesVol. 38, No. 4, October 2012, 425–437

ISSN 0305-5698 print/ISSN 1465-3400 online� 2011 Taylor & Francishttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2011.643107http://www.tandfonline.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

46 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

2. Theoretical background

2.1. Learning approaches

An important factor affecting academic achievement is the students’ approach tolearning and what they do while studying as a result of their approach (Entwistle,Thompson, and Wilson 1974). Learning approaches can be divided into two maincategories: the deep approach (DA), where the student has the intent to understandand make sense of the basic principles and ideas in the material; and the surfaceapproach (SA), where the student just has the intent to memorise the words in thepassage as in rote learning (Kember 1996; Marton and Saljö 1976).

Some studies that investigated the correlation between students’ learningapproaches and their academic achievement found students to be equally successfulwhether they used the DA or the SA (Biggs 1976); but as more research wascarried out it became “. . . clear that students’ approaches are linked to academicsuccess” (Ramsden 1983, 695), and that the DA results in better performance andacademic success whereas the SA results in lower academic achievement (Ramsden1983; Zeegers 2004; Zhang 2000).

There were, however, some reports that the DA did not result in better academicachievement (Cassidy and Eachus 2000; Diseth and Martinsen 2003; Rollnick et al.2008).

An association with the fathers’ education levels and use of the approaches havebeen found. As the students’ fathers’ education level increases, the use of the DAincreases (Biggs 1985).

2.2. Locus of control

Rotter’s (1966) LOC theory is based upon an individual’s belief system. This beliefsystem consists of two factors. One is internal LOC where individuals believe thatevents or outcomes are a result of one’s own plans, hard work, abilities, motivation,persistence and effort; and if events or outcomes are not to their satisfaction theseindividuals take responsibility and action to amend the situation (Gifford, Briceño-Perriott, and Mianzo 2006). The other is external LOC where individuals believethat events or outcomes are a consequence of external factors which are seen to bebeyond their control and when events do not turn out to be according to their satis-faction they look to blame others.

Although some studies did not show LOC to be predictive of academic perfor-mance (Bozorgi 2009; Brenenstuhl and Badgett 1977; Watkins 1987; Wigen, Holen,and Ellinsen 2003), literature reviews and mega analytic examination of researchespublished between 1983 and 1994 on studies looking at LOC and academic perfor-mance show that LOC is a significant predictor of academic acheivement (Findleyand Cooper 1983; Kalechstein and Nowicki 1997). Research conducted since thenprovides further indication that LOC positively correlates to academic success(Gifford, Briceño-Perriott, and Mianzo 2006) and that external LOC is more likelyto result in lower grades (Wood, Saylor, and Cohen 2009).

Studies on LOC have used many variables. One other variable that has beenfound to be predictive of LOC is the learning approach. It has been found that stu-dents’ internal LOC affects their approach to learning i.e. it develops their DA tolearning (Biggs 1985; Cassidy and Eachus 2000), making them more constructivein their approach and this in return positively influences their exam results (Wigen,Holen, and Ellinsen 2003).

426 N. Suphi and H. Yaratan

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

46 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

2.3. Level of parent education

Socio-economic status (SES), of which, parental income, education and occupationare the main components, has been found to have a strong correlation with academicachievement (Sirin 2005). Parental education level is a factor that has beenresearched in conjunction with academic success and is considered the most unwa-vering feature of SES. Sirin (2005) did a mega-analytic SES literature review on theresearch published between 1990 and 2000. He found parental education “. . . to bethe most commonly used SES component” (434) and to have a higher significantrelationship with academic achievement than the other two components (Sirin 2005).

Research conducted after the mega-analytic SES literature review, continues toshow parental education to predict academic performance (Kaufman, Agars, andLopez-Wagner 2008).

Association with the fathers’ education level and use of the learning approachesindicate that as the education level of the father increases so does the use of theDA by the student (Biggs 1985).

2.4. Self-efficacy

Self-efficacy is another important predictor of academic achievement and is “. . .partly determined by people’s beliefs that they can attain the goals they set forthemselves” (Bandura 1989, 47). Decades of research on the effects of self-efficacyin education has shown it to be a predictor of academic achievement (Pintrich andSchunk 1996; Schunk and Pajares 2004; Zeegers 2004). Studies incorporating othervariables such as the learning approaches with self-efficacy have found high aca-demic self-efficacy to be related to the use of deep or strategic learning approachesand vice versa (Cassidy and Eachus 2000).

There is much interest in finding which variables predict academic achievementand many different combination of variables have been studied mainly in Europe,Australia and America.

This study aims to help fill in the gap in the literature for Turkish studentsregarding the prediction of academic success using the tried and tested variables inthe above mentioned countries. The variables considered in this study are learningapproaches, self-efficacy, LOC and SES.

3. Method

3.1. Participants

A total of 163 Turkish students from Turkey and North Cyprus were registered tothe Statistics I course in the Guidance and Psychological Counselling Programmein the Department of Educational Sciences of Eastern Mediterranean University inNorth Cyprus in the 2009–2010 Fall Semester. Out of this number, 103 (63%) stu-dents took part in the study. The course grade achieved by the students for thiscourse was obtained at the end of the semester from the student portal and used forthe academic success variable.

Ninety-nine cases were valid for the analyses, out of these, 54 (54.5%) werefemale. The majority (71.7%) of the students who took part in the study werebetween ages 20 and 22, 17.2% were below the age of 20 and 11.1% were aged 23and above. Most of the students (79.8%) were from Turkey. About half (51.5%) of

Educational Studies 427

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

46 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

the students’ present cumulative grade point average (CGPA) ranged between 2.00and 2.99, 30.4% ranged between 3.00 and 4.00, and the remaining 9.1% of the stu-dents’ CGPA ranged between 1.00 and 1.99; thus showing that the vast majority(89.9%) of the students participating in the study were academically sound in theirsecond year of higher education. About a quarter (25.3%) of the students’ fatherswere Elementary School (ages 6–11 years), 10.1% Middle School (ages 11–14 years), 30.3% were High School graduates (ages 14–18 years), 15.2% graduatedfrom a two-year higher educational programme and 17.2% from university. Quite anumber of the students’ mothers (8.1%) were shown to be illiterate, 3% were statedto be able to read and write, 31.3% were Elementary School graduates (ages 6–11 years), 15.2% Middle School graduates (ages 11–14 years), 22.2% High Schoolgraduates (ages 14–18 years) and only 8.1% were university graduates (only one ofthem having a masters degree), leaving 12.1% as graduates from a two-year highereducational programme.

3.2. Instruments

Four instruments were used in this study: Revised Study Process Questionnaire(R-SPQ-2F) (Biggs, Kember, and Leung 2001), Turkish version of Self-EfficacyScale (Yılmaz, Gürçay, and Ekici 2007), Turkish version of the LOC Scale (Dağ1991) and Demographic Questionnaire prepared by the authors.

The students’ learning approaches were measured using the R-SPQ-2F (Biggs,Kember, and Leung 2001) which was translated into Turkish by the authors. Thequestionnaire measures DA and SA employing 10 items per approach. The Cron-bach’s alpha values for the reliability of the scales measured by Biggs, Kember, andLeung (2001) are .73 for DA and .64 for SA. Permission to translate and use thisquestionnaire was obtained from the authors. After back-translation and correctionof discrepancies the validity and reliability of the Turkish translated version waspiloted on 103 Turkish speaking university students and was found to be .77 forthe DA and .59 for the SA.

The students’ LOC was measured using the Turkish version of the LOC Scale(Rotter 1966) translated and named “İç-Dıs� Kontrol Odağı Ölçeği” by Dağ (1991).The aim of this scale is to measure whether the participants perceive they have con-trol over events in their life (internal LOC) or whether they believe everything isdown to fate (external LOC). The scale consists of 29 questions, 6 of them beingfiller questions. The Turkish version has a Kuder-Richardson value of .70. whichcoincides with the original English version by Rotter (1966) which has a Cron-bach’s alpha reliability of .70. Permission to use the Turkish version of the scalehas been obtained from Dağ.

The students’ level of academic self-efficacy was measured using the Turkishversion of the Academic Self-Efficacy Scale which was translated into TurkishYılmaz, Gürçay, and Ekici (2007). The aim of this scale was to assess students’belief that they will complete academic tasks successfully (Yılmaz, Gürçay, andEkici 2007). The scale was originally created in German by Schwarzer andJerusalem (1995), has one dimension, seven items and uses a 4-point Likert scalewith a Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient of .87. The Turkish translation hasa Cronbach’s alpha value of .79. Permission to use this version has beenobtained.

428 N. Suphi and H. Yaratan

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

46 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

The final instrument used in this study was the Demographics Questionnairewhich aims to gather information such as the students’ age, gender, nationality,fathers’ education level, mothers’ education level, lycee graduating score andCGPA.

3.3. Administration of the instruments

The Turkish versions of the R-SPQ-2F, LOC and Self-Efficacy Scale instrumentstogether with the Demographics Questionnaire were administered to the four groupsas group administration during the 9th and 10th weeks of the 2009–2010 Fallsemester.

3.4. Reliability and validity of the instruments

All the analyses were conducted using SPSS (version 16.0). The Turkish translationof the R-SPQ-2F (Biggs, Kember, and Leung 2001) was tested for its reliability andthe Cronbach’s alpha values were found to be .75 for the DA and .74 for the SAwhich proved to be higher than those of the original English version. An exploratoryfactor analysis using the principal components model with varimax rotation was con-ducted fixing the number of factors to be extracted to two. Factor 1 incorporated allof the DA questions and Factor 2 incorporated all but one of the SA questions.Question 4 “I only study seriously what’s given out in class or in the course outline”was found to be an outlier and was omitted from further analyses. These factor com-ponents are in line with the original English version of the R-SPQ-2F.

The reliability of the Turkish translation of the LOC Scale (Rotter 1966) trans-lated and named “İç-Dıs� Kontrol Odağı Ölçeği” by Dağ (1991) was tested usingthe Cronbach’s alpha and found to be .71, which coincides with the original Englishand Turkish translated version.

The Cronbach’s alpha value of the Turkish translation of the Self-Efficacy Scalewas found to be .73. On omitting question two from the questionnaire, the explor-atory factor analysis results showed one factor which is the same as for the originalGerman and the Turkish translated versions.

4. Results

4.1. Correlations

Analyses of the 99 valid cases were made using Pearson’s correlation. Table 1shows the correlations between academic achievement (course grade), LOC, self-efficacy, learning approaches, difference between DA mean and SA mean anddemographic factors. The variable “difference between DA mean and SA mean”was obtained by subtracting SA mean from DA mean.

If the difference is positive then it means that the student is using the DA morethan the SA. If the difference is negative then that means that the student is usingthe SA more than the DA. The correlation coefficients between these variablesrange from r=�.851 which is the correlation between SA and difference betweenDA and SA (DA�SA) to r= .802 between DA and DA�SA.

Gender was found to be positively correlated with LOC (r= .212). This showsthat the female students in this study have external LOC which means they believe

Educational Studies 429

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

46 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Table1.

Means,standard

deviations

andcorrelations

betweenLOC,self-efficacy,learning

approaches,gender,age,

natio

nality,

lyceescore,

CGPA

,mothers’andfathers’

educationlevelandacadem

icachievem

ent(coursegrade)

(n=99).

Variable

12

34

56

78

910

1112

13

1.Gender

1.00

2.Age

�.258⁄

⁄1.00

3.Nationality

.156

�.180

1.00

4.Lycee

score

.099

�.334⁄

⁄�.

057

1.00

5.CGPA

�.065

�.186

�.320⁄

⁄.331

⁄⁄1.00

6.Fathers’education

.186

�.119

�.201⁄

.231

⁄�.

033

1.00

7.Mothers’education

.131

�.145

�.016

.263

⁄�.

172

.670

⁄⁄1.00

8.Self-efficacy

(mean)

�.059

�.046

�.039

.099

.247

⁄�.

152

�0.161

1.00

9.LOC(m

ean)

.212

⁄�.

025

.053

�.142

�.092

�.083

.011

�.191

1.00

Learningapproaches

10.DA

(means)

�.071

.042

�.151

.096

.186

�.186

�.240⁄

.277

⁄⁄�.

120

1.00

11.SA

(means)

�.113

.099

.145

�.284⁄

⁄�.

347⁄

⁄�.

030

.078

�.238⁄

.332

⁄⁄�.

369⁄

⁄1.00

12.DA–S

A(m

eans)

.032

�.040

�.179

.232

⁄.329

⁄⁄�.

085

�.185

.309

⁄⁄�.

281⁄

⁄.802

⁄⁄�.

851⁄

⁄1.00

13.Coursegrade

�.160

�.203⁄

�.405⁄

⁄.171

.584

⁄⁄�.

024

�.240⁄

.337

⁄⁄�.

096

.140

�.235⁄

.230

⁄1.00

Mean

1.55

1.94

1.20

7.72

3.30

4.83

4.10

3.65

.51

2.96

2.77

.19

8.46

Standarddeviation

.50

.53

.40

1.07

.63

1.46

1.64

.61

.18

.64

.72

1.13

2.95

430 N. Suphi and H. Yaratan

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

46 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

that they do not have control over their lives and are more prone to believe in fate.This is in keeping with the findings of Findley and Cooper (1983) in their literaturereview on LOC and academic achievement.

The results showed age to be negatively correlated with course grade and lyceegraduation score (r=�.203 and �.334, respectively) showing that the younger theage of the student, the higher the grade achieved for this course and the higher theirlycee graduation score was. Nationality was found to be significantly negativelyrelated to CGPA, level of fathers’ education of students, and course grade(r=�.320, �.201, and �.405, respectively). This result showed that the studentsfrom North Cyprus had lower CGPAs, their fathers’ education level was lower thanthe fathers’ education level of the students from Turkey and they received a lowercourse grade in this course than their counterparts from Turkey.

Lycee scores of students with their CGPAs, fathers’ education level and mothers’education level were all found to be positively significantly correlated (r= .331, .231and .263, respectively) revealing that the students who graduated from lycee with ahigh grade had both parents with higher education levels and their university CGPAwas higher. Zeegers (2004, 53) in his study of 194 first year and 118 third year uni-versity students found prior academic achievement (similar to the lycee score in thisstudy) to be the “best predictor of academic success”. Many studies have found highschool grade to be significantly related to first year performance in higher education(Dickson, Fleet, and Watt 2000; Eikland and Manger 1992; Kimbal, Farmer, andMonson 1981; Lineweber and Vacha 1985; McKenzie, Gow, and Schweitzer 2004;Michaels and Miethe 1989; NSSE 2006; Tait and Entwistle 1996).

A significant but negative relationship was found with lycee score and SA,(r=�.284). This revealed that students with high lycee scores were less likely touse the SA. Although there was no significant relationship found with lycee scoreand the DA, a significant positive relationship was found with lycee score and DA–SA (r= .232) showing that although these students use both approaches, those witha high lycee graduating score used the DA more than their counterparts. This couldbe a trait carried from lycee to university. Students’ mothers’ education level had anegative significant relationship with course grade, and the DA (r=�.240 and�.240, respectively) which means that as the mothers’ level of education increasesstudents use the DA less and receive lower grades.

Significant positive relationships were found between self-efficacy and CGPA(r= .247), and self-efficacy and course grade (r= .337), which coincides with thefindings in the literature on this topic (Pintrich and Schunk 1996; Schunk andPajares 2004; Warkentin, Griffin, and Bates 1994; Zeegers 2004). Self-efficacy hada significant positive relationship with the DA, and DA�SA (r= .277 and .309,respectively) which conforms the findings of Cassidy and Eachus (2000). Thisshows that the higher the self-efficacy students have the more likely they are to usethe DA which will result in a high grade and contribute towards their CGPA. Onthe other hand a significant negative relationship was found between self-efficacyand the SA (r=�.238), thus showing that the higher the students’ self-efficacy theless likely they will use the SA for learning. This is again in harmony with the find-ings of Cassidy and Eachus (2000).

LOC was not found to correlate directly with academic achievement conformingto the findings of Brenenstuhl and Badgett (1977), Bozorgi (2009), Cassidy andEachus (2000) and Watkins (1987). LOC was, however, found to be significantlypositively related to the SA, and negatively to DA�SA (r= .332 and �.281,

Educational Studies 431

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

46 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

respectively) showing that students who have external LOC are more likely to usethe SA. Similar results were found by Watkins and Regmi (1990), Cassidy andEachus (2000) and Wigen, Holen, and Ellinsen (2003).

CGPA was also found to be significantly positively related with course grade(r= .584). This showed that the higher the students’ CGPA, the higher the coursegrade they received for this course. These results are understandable as the studentswould want to keep up their high CGPA by attempting to receive good grades fromas many courses as possible. CGPA was also found to be significantly negativelyrelated to SA (r=�.347) revealing that the higher the students’ CGPA the lesslikely they were to use the SA. The significant positive relationship found betweenCGPA and DA�SA (r= .329) seems to prove this point in that students with highCGPA are more prone to use the DA over the SA.

4.2. Regression

The multiple regression analysis summary results shown in Table 2 revealed that ageand nationality were significant predictors of students’ course grade (b =�.218,t =�2.747, p= .007 and b =�.323, t=�3.972, p= .000, respectively) and that theyounger students and those from Turkey obtained higher grades. Also, significantlypredicted were students whose mothers’ education levels were lower, received highergrades than their counterparts (b =�.180, t =�2.328, p= .022). This is an interestingphenomenon that needs to be investigated further. The results also, predicted that self-efficacy and CGPA had a significant positive relationship with course grade and thatstudents who believed in their academic ability and who also already had a highCGPA can be expected to receive a high course grade (b = .199, t= 2.586, p= .011and b = .360, t = 4.237, p= .000, respectively). Furthermore, all variance inflation fac-tors were below five implying that there was no multi-collinearity problem (Groebneret al. 2005). Finally, adjusted R2 = .47 between the five predictor variables and the cri-terion variable indicated that 47% of the variance of the course grade of the studentsis accounted for by their age, nationality, mothers’ education, self-efficacy and CGPA.From this model the following regression equation has been obtained:

Course grade = 5.894 �.218� age �.323 � nationality �.180 � mother’s edu-cation + .199� self-efficacy + .360 �CGPA.

5. Discussions and conclusions

This study’s aim was to assess the effects of learning approaches, LOC, self-efficacy,demographic factors on academic achievement of both Turkish and Turkish Cypriotuniversity students studying in North Cyprus.

Table 2. Multiple regression analysis results.

Effect on course grade b t p Variance inflation factors

Age �.218 �2.747 .007 1.151Nationality �.323 �3.972 .000 1.210Mothers’ education �.180 �2.328 .022 1.097Self-efficacy .199 2.586 .011 1.084CGPA .360 4.237 .000 1.323Adjusted R2 .470F 15.33

432 N. Suphi and H. Yaratan

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

46 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

The results presented in Tables 1 and 2 suggest that the younger university stu-dents, and mainly those from Turkey, seem to be getting the higher grades in thisstatistics course. Also it shows that students with already high CGPAs are morelikely to achieve a higher grade. This is an understandable result as students whoare already doing well will want to keep up the good work.

Self-efficacy has been shown to be an indicator of academic achievement bothas course grade and CGPA, thus keeping in line with other literature on this topic(Pintrich and Schunk 1996; Zimmerman 2000). The results also indicated that stu-dents with high self-efficacy tended to use the DA, and students who had low self-efficacy were shown to lean towards the use of the SA. This outcome stresses theimportance of believing in one’s ability to achieve one’s aim and can give insightto parents as well as academicians just how vital it is to incorporate ways to helpbuild this belief starting from infancy right through to adulthood.

An interesting and unexpected result was found regarding students’ mothers’education levels. As the mothers’ education level increases, the students’ coursegrade, CGPA and the use of the DA decreases. Although both the students’ moth-ers’ and fathers’ education levels were found to have a significant positive relation-ship with their lycee graduating scores, this indication of academic success does notseem to continue on into university. This interesting and unexpected phenomenonwill require further investigation.

The DA in this study was not found to be significantly related to academicachievement (course grade). This was a disappointing outcome but in line withmany other studies (Cassidy and Eachus 2000; Diseth and Martinsen 2003; Roll-nick et al. 2008). Amongst the reasons being shown for this in the literature isthat it could be due to “failure to reward deep learning” (Cassidy and Eachus2000, 318), the requirements of the course, the learning environment and examina-tion procedures (Diseth and Martinsen 2003; Rollnick et al. 2008), whether stu-dents see any future use for what they are learning in the course (Zhang 2000)and the type of course they are taking. These are all possible reasons for the out-come of this study. Although the majority of the western countries seem to indi-cate the DA leading to success, results of a study on Chinese students in HongKong showed that they used the SA to “understand” and “learn” what they werereading (Kember and Gow 1990). In the present study the successful studentsseem to be using both approaches more or less to the same degree with a ten-dency to use the DA slightly more but it has not been proven to be predictive ofacademic achievement in this study. The reasons for this could be that these stu-dents are also trying to understand the concepts first and then using the SA wherethey can get away with it. Research on learning approaches and fields of studyhas shown that students tend to use the SA for the engineering and physical sci-ence subjects (Laird, Shoup, and Kuh 2005). Out of the three dimensions of cate-gorising fields of study, Biglan (1973) categorised statistics (the course thestudents in this study are taking) as hard, pure non-life where it was found thatthe SA was favoured (Laird et al. 2008). Therefore, the results of this study werenot far off line with the literature. Another reason for the DA not directly beingsignificantly related to academic achievement in this study could be that in thispart of the world also, universities are in competition with each other to enrol andkeep students for their survival. This is being done by lowering the entrancerequirements, thus resulting in a student population of vast diverse backgrounds.Consequently, universities may find themselves forced to be less stringent with

Educational Studies 433

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

46 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

their grading as this will result in losing struggling students to other more lenientuniversities. Rather than loosen their grading, teachers may prefer to teach in away that caters for these types of students, i.e. asking questions that surface learn-ers can answer also in order to help them attain marks to pass the course. Stu-dents who are able and have the self-efficacy to use the DA use it to a certaindegree but at some stage, maybe after the midterm exam, realise that the SA willalso suffice and so end up using an adequate combination of the two. This is areal problem for lecturers who may find themselves frustrated at first, how to dealwith the diverse academic background of the students and second, how to preventstudent dropout due to underachievement without overslackening the academicstandard as on the other hand universities are also giving great importance toenhancing their image, academic standards and accreditation.

From the results of this study it seems that the indicator is pointing to self-effi-cacy as an important factor that predicts academic achievement. Policy makers aswell as academicians may need to look at methods of incorporating ways ofenhancing self-efficacy and inducing a little more DA to students’ learning. TheDA to learning is a preferred approach by education specialists as it entices intrinsicmotivation to understand what one is learning. Taking an intrinsic interest in under-standing while learning motivates people to seek more information, learn how tolearn, expand their horizons, help remember and use their knowledge in many dif-ferent situations other than the classroom setting. Ultimately, isn’t this one of themain purposes of gaining a university education?

Notes on contributorsNilgün Suphi is a PhD student in the Department of Educational Sciences at the EasternMediterranean University. Her research focuses on the effects of learning approaches, locusof control, self-efficacy, socio-economic factors, study habits and methods of teaching onacademic achievement in undergraduates.

Hüseyin Yaratan is an assistant professor of curriculum and instruction and the Head ofDepartment of Educational Sciences at the Eastern Mediterranean University. He is doingresearch on all subjects related to curriculum and instruction at all levels of schooling. Hehas been a guest editor, member of the editorial board and reviewer of several scientificperiodicals.

References

Bandura, A. 1989. Social cognitive theory. In Annals of child development. , Vol. 6, ed.R. Vasta, Six theories of child development, 1–60. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/Bandura1989ACD.pdf.

Biglan, A. 1973. Relationships between subject matter characteristics and the structure andoutput of university departments. Journal of Applied Psychology 57: 204–13.

Biggs, J.B. 1976. Dimensions of study behaviour: Another look at ATI. British Journal ofEducational Psychology 46: 68–80.

Biggs, J.B. 1985. The role of metalearning in study processes. British Journal of Educa-tional Sciences 55: 185–212.

Biggs, J.B., D. Kember, and D.Y.P. Leung. 2001. The revised two-factor study process ques-tionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology 71: 133–49.

Bozorgi, S. 2009. On the relationship between locus of control and the grade point averageof the Iranian Azad University EFL students. (Report – Research Accession numberED505569). http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED505569.pdf.

434 N. Suphi and H. Yaratan

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

46 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Brenenstuhl, D.C., and T.F. Badgett. 1977. Prediction of academic achievement in a simula-tion mode via personality constructs. New Horizons in Simulation Games and Experien-tial Learning 4: 223–30. http://sbaweb.wayne.edu/~absel/bkl/vol04/04ba.pdf.

Cassidy, S., and P. Eachus. 2000. Learning style, academic belief systems, self-report studentproficiency and academic achievement in higher education. Educational Psychology 20:308–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/713663740.

Dağ, I. 1991. Rotter’in iç-dıs� kontrol odağı ölçeği (RİDKOÖ)’nin üniversite öğrencileri içingüvenirliği ve geçerliği [The validity and reliability for university students of Rotter’sinternal-external locus of control scale]. Psikoloji Dergisi 7, no. 26: 10–6.

Dickson, J., A. Fleet, and H.M.G. Watt. 2000. Success or failure in a core university unit:What makes the difference? Higher Education Research & Development 19, no. 1:59–73. http://users.monash.edu.au/~hwatt/articles/Dickson_Fleet_Watt_HERD2000.pdf.

Diseth, A., and O. Martinsen. 2003. Approaches to learning, cognitive style and motives aspredictors of academic achievement. Educational Psychology 23: 195–207. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01443410303225.

Eikland, O., and T. Manger. 1992. Why students fail during their first university semesters.International Review of Education 38: 489–503. http://www.springerlink.com/content/j6765204p45r4215/fulltext.pdf.

Entwistle, N.J., J. Thompson, and J.D. Wilson. 1974. Motivation and study habits. HigherEducation 3: 379–95. http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3445781.pdf?acceptTC=true.

Findley, M.J., and H.M. Cooper. 1983. Locus of control and academic achievement: A litera-ture review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 44: 419–27. http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=198325296–001&CFID.

Gifford, D.D., J. Briceño-Perriott, and F. Mianzo. 2006. Locus of control: Academic achievementand retention in a sample of university first-year students. Journal of College Admission 191:18–25. http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=2&hid=105&sid=aof85d1e-oc3c-47ab-b757–6db158fa156%40sessionmgr104.

Groebner, D.F., P.W. Shannon, P.C. Fry, and K.D. Smith. 2005. Business statistics: A deci-sion-making approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Kalechstein, A.D., and S. Nowicki, Jr. 1997. A meta-analytic examination of the relationshipbetween control expectancies and academic achievement: An 11-year follow-up to Find-ley and Cooper. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs 123: 27–57.http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=LghLXc5XCcSLJjhcc5r5LBQ.

Kaufman, J.C., M.D. Agars, and M.C. Lopez-Wagner. 2008. The role of personality and motiva-tion in predicting early college academic success in non-traditional students at a hispanic-serving institution. Learning and Individual Differences 18: 492–6. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=Mlmg&_imagekey=B6W5P-4RFC8NO-2-1&_cdi=6576&.user=13904.

Kember, D. 1996. The intention to both memorize and understand: Another approach tolearning? Higher Education 31: 341–54.

Kember, D., and L. Gow. 1990. Cultural specificity of approaches to study. British Journalof Educational Psychology 60: 356–63.

Kimbal, E.L., L.C. Farmer, and D.G. Monson. 1981. Ability, effort, and performance amongfirst-year law students at Brigham young university. American Bar Foundation ResearchJournal 6: 671–97. http://www.jstor.org/stable/828344.

Laird, T.F.N., R. Shoup, and G.D. Kuh. 2005. Deep learning and college outcomes: Dofields of study differ? Paper presented a the annual meeting of the Association for Insti-tutional Research, May/June, in San Diego, CA. http://nsse.jub.edu/pdf/conference_presentations/2005/AIR2005DeepLearning-PAPER.pdf.

Laird, T.F.N., R. Shoup, G.D. Kuh, and M.J. Schwarz. 2008. The effects of discipline ondeep approaches to student learning and college outcomes. Research in Higher Educa-tion 49: 469–94. http://www.springerlink.com/content/6001612048626503/.

Lineweber, D.C., and E.F. Vacha. 1985. Advising students with problems in introductorysociology: My roommate only studied an hour and she got an A! Teaching Sociology13: 70–94. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1318414.

Marton, F., and R. Saljö. 1976. On qualitative differences in learning I – outcome and pro-cess. British Journal of Educational Psychology 46: 4–11.

Educational Studies 435

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

46 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

McKenzie, K., K. Gow, and R. Schweitzer. 2004. Exploring first-year academic achievementthrough structural equation modelling. Higher Education Research & Development 23:95–112. http://pdfserve.informaworld.com/243800_758064766_758480320.pdf.

Michaels, J.W., and T.D. Miethe. 1989. Academic effort and college grades. Social Forces68: 309–19. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2579230.

National Survey of Student Engagement. 2006. What matters to student success: A reviewof the literature. Commissioned report for the National Symposium on PostsecondaryStudent Success: Spearheading a Dialog on Student Success. Bloomington, Indiana, IN:University Center for Postsecondary Research. http://nces.ed.gov/npec/pdf/Kuh_Team_Report.pdf.

Pintrich, P., and D. Schunk. 1996. Motivation in education: Theory, research & applications.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/PS.html.

Ramsden, P. 1983. Institutional variations in British students’ approaches to learning and expe-riences of teaching. Higher Education 12: 691–705. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3446124.

Rollnick, M., B. Davidowitz, M. Keane, A. Bapoo, and L. Magadla. 2008. Students’ learn-ing approach profiles in relation to their university experience and success. Teaching inHigher Education 13: 29–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13562510701792286.

Rotter, J.B. 1966. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforce-ment. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied 80: 1–28. http://psychnet.apa.org/journals/mon/80/1/1.pdf.

Schunk, D.H., and F. Pajares. 2004. Self-efficacy in education revisited: Empirical and appliedevidence. In Big theories revisited, ed. D.M. Mcinerney and S. Van Etten, 115–38. Green-wich, CT: Information Age Publishing. http://books.google.com.tr/books?id=u3IEU4_88YAC&pg=PA116&lpg=PA116&dq=Schunk++Pajares+Big+theories+revisited.&source=bl&ots=P_NlYgLRD1&sig=rcQFCkiGItY_JHOdebOboDYkGQQ&hl=tr&ei=6cncTYP9OJDrgQf566HuDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Schunk%20%20Pajares%20Big%20theories%20revisited.&f=false.

Schwarzer, R., and M. Jerusalem. 1995. Generalized self-efficacy scale. In Measures in healthpsychology: A user’s portfolio. Causal and control beliefs, ed. J. Weinman, S. Wright, andM. Johnston, 35–7. Windsor: Nfer-Nelson. http://www.musc.edu/dfm/RCMAR/GenSEscale.html.

Sirin, S. 2005. Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review ofresearch. Review of Educational Research 75: 417–53. http://firstsearch.oclc.org/images/WSPL/wsppdf1/PDF/00924/P561G/NSL.PDF.

Tait, H., and N. Entwistle. 1996. Identifying students at risk through ineffective study strate-gies. Higher Education 31: 97–116. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3447710.

Warkentin, R.W., B. Griffin, and J.A. Bates. 1994. The relationship between college students’study activities, content knowledge structure, academic self-efficacy and classroomachievement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, April, in New Orleans, LA.http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED374152.pdf.

Watkins, D. 1987. Academic locus of control: A relevant variable at tertiary level? HigherEducation 16: 221–9. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3446990.

Watkins, D., and M. Regmi. 1990. An investigation of the approach to learning of Nepalesetertiary students. Higher Education 20: 459–69. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3447224.

Wigen, K., A. Holen, and O. Ellinsen. 2003. Predicting academic success by group behav-iour in PBL. Taylor & Francis 25: 32–7. http://informahealthcare.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/0142159021000061396.

Wood, A.M., C. Saylor, and J. Cohen. 2009. Locus of control and academic success amongethnically diverse baccalaureate nursing students. Nursing Education Research 30:290–4. http://nln.allenpress.com/doi/pdf/10.1043/1536–5026-30.5.290.

Yılmaz, M., D. Gürçay, and G. Ekici. 2007. Adaptation of the academic self-efficacy scaleto Turkish. Hacettepe University Journal of Education 33: 253–9.

Zeegers, P. 2004. Student learning in higher education: a path analysis of academic achieve-ment in science. Higher Education Research & Development 23: 35–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0729436032000168487.

Zhang, L. 2000. University students’ learning approaches in three cultures. An investigationof Bigg’s 3P model. The Journal of Psychology 134: 37–55. http://pb5be8yq6w.search.serialssolutions.com/?sid=CentralSearch:CWS&genre=article&atitle=University+students

436 N. Suphi and H. Yaratan

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

46 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

%27+learning+approaches+in+three+cultures%3A+an+investigation+of+Biggs%27s+3P+model.&volume=134&issue=1&title=The+Journal+of+Psychology&issn=0022–3980&date=2000–01-01&spage=37&aulast=zhang&aufirst=Li-Fang.

Zhao, C., G.D. Kuh, and R.M. Carini. 2005. A comparison of international student andAmerican student engagement in effective educational practices. Journal of Higher Edu-cation 76: 209–31. http://www.nsse.iub.edu/pdf/research_papers/international.pdf.

Zimmerman, B.J. 2000. Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educa-tional Psychology 25: 82–91. http://www.unco.edu/cebs/psychology/kevinpugh/motiva-tion_project/resources/zimmerman00.pdf.

Educational Studies 437

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

46 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014