Learning Dimensions Influencing Undergraduate Students' Learning and

Academic Achievement: Students and Professors Perspectives

‫ قسم المناهج وطرق التدريس‬-‫ أستاذ مساعد‬،‫عبد السالم دائل عامر سيف‬.‫د‬
‫ الجمهورية اليمنية‬،‫ تعز‬،6202 :‫ب‬.‫ ص‬،‫ جامعة تعز‬،‫كلية التربية‬
Dr. Abdulsalam D. A. Saif, Assistant professor- Department of Curriculum and Instructions
Faculty of Education, Taiz University, Po.Box: 6202, Taiz, Republic of Yemen
doc_abdulsalam@hotmail.com
Abstract

The main aim of this study was to determine the opinions of the undergraduate

students and professors on factors that affect student learning and academic achievement. A

questionnaire of 24 items was applied to 210 undergraduate students and 58 professors at Taiz

University in Yemen. The results showed that both students and professors almost agreed on

the most important factors influencing learning, and believed that professors provided major

input into the learning process. The results also showed significant differences between the

two groups of participants in 10 of the 24 learning dimensions. Recommendations for higher

education learning and future research were included.

Keywords: Learning dimensions; Academic achievement; Higher education; Student

learning; Professors
‫ملخص الدراسة‬

‫الهدف الرئيسي لهذه الدراسة هو تحديد وجهات نظر الطلبة الجامعيين وكذلك أعضاء هيئة التدريس جول العوامل‬

‫ بينما تألفت‬،‫) فقرة‬24( ‫ األداة المستخدمة كانت عبارة عن استبيان مكون من‬.‫المؤثرة على تعلم الطلبة وتحصيلهم األكاديمي‬

‫ وقد كشفت النتائج عن توافق وجهات نظر الطلبة وأعضاء‬.‫) أستاذ جامعي‬58( ‫) طالب وطالبة و‬210( ‫عينة الدراسة من‬

‫هيئة التدريس تقريبا ً بالنسبة للعوامل األكثر تأثيرا على التعلم وكذلك اعتقادهم بأن األستاذ الجامعي يمثل عنصر أساسي‬

‫ كما بينت الدراسة وجود فروق ذات داللة إحصائية بين الطلبة وأعضاء هيئة التدريس في عشرة عوامل من‬.‫لعملية التعلم‬

.‫ وقد تضمنت الدراسة بعض التوصيات للتعليم الجامعي والبحث المستقبلي‬.‫) عامل‬24( ‫أصل‬

Introduction

Teaching in higher education is a very complicated and detailed subject. We may

never reach agreement on all of the dimensions of learning that are integral to an

undergraduate education, but there is obviously growing consensus on some of those

dimensions. In any case, students will learn more effectively when we have made clear at our

own institutions and in our programs not just what they will study but how they will be able to

act and think as a result of their education. While there is room, indeed a need, in our teaching

practice for a wide variety of pedagogies, those that engage students in the active practice of

the disciplines are truer to the spirit of the learning we desire for our students. The same goes

for assessment of student learning. All teachers evaluate their students; the key is to develop

means of evaluation that truly assess the active learning. One of the key principles of effective

teaching in higher education is the concern of student learning, learning style, learning

dimensions, and academic beliefs, as significant factors contributing to academic

achievement.

The quality of student learning in higher education can be improved when teaching

strategies take into account students' perceptions of learning. The connection between

students' learning of a particular content and the quality of our teaching of that content must

be realized. Good teaching and good learning are linked through students' experiences of what

teachers do. It follows that teachers can not teach better unless they are able to see their works

from students' viewpoint (Ramsden, 1999).

Learning dimensions and academic belief systems represent significant factors

contributing to academic achievement. Accordingly, the quality of higher education can only

be improved when the effects of such factors on students' learning are identified.

Related Research

Ramsden (1999) identified the following six key principles of effective teaching in

higher education: interest and explanation, concern and respect for student and student

learning, appropriate assessment and feedback, clear goals and intellectual challenge,

independence and control, and active engagement. In their study, Jackson et. al. (1999)

reviewed the dimensions of students' perceptions of teaching effectiveness. The confirmatory

2
factor analysis procedures were used in that study to asses the fit of the original solution for

students' perceptions of teaching effectiveness to their study sample (more than 7.000

university classes). The analyses provided a clear interpretation of six first-order and two

second-order dimensions of instructional quality that were useful across a board range of

university courses.

According to Eraut (1994), the three basic sources of the professional learning are:

access to knowledge and debate (publication), practical experience, and the people. The

author also points out the importance of the links between these three sources, and suggests

that a framework for promoting and facilitating professional learning must take into account:

(1) an appropriate combination of learning settings, (2) time for study, consultation and

reflection, (3) the availability of suitable learning resources, (4) people who are prepared to

give appropriate support, and (5) the learner's own capacity to learn and to take advantage of

opportunities available.

Blackwell (2003) provides seven benchmarks for programs that will produce high-

quality instructors who understand how students learn. These benchmarks are: (1) knowledge

and understanding based on previous experience; (2) usable content of knowledge; (3)

transfer of learning/the learning context; (4) strategic thinking; (5) motivation; (6)

development and individual differences; and (7) standards and assessment.

A learning style indicates a person's preferred way of learning. Marriott (2002) shows

that there are a number of different leaning style preferences, and confirms hat students do not

learn in the same way. Differences in learning style preferences exist, and these learning style

preferences change over time (Marriott, 2002). In the meantime, Cassidy (2000) identified

both learning style and academic belief systems as significant factors contributing to

academic achievement. The author also showed that perceived proficiency increased after

completing the taught modules, and positively correlated with academic performance. A study

3
of Sander et. al. (2000), explored undergraduate students' expectations of preferences in

teaching, learning, and assessment. The results of the study showed the following: (a) students

expected to be taught by formal and interactive lectures but preferred to be taught by

interactive lectures and group-based activities, (b) students' least favored learning methods

were formal lecture, role-play and student presentations, and (c) coursework assessment

preference was for essays, research projects, and problems/exercises. Moreover, the study

found that the similarities in expectations and preferences between students were greater than

the differences.

According to Lizzio , Wilson , & Simons (2002) students' perceptions may influence

their learning outcomes (academic achievement, satisfaction, development of key skills)

through their approaches to study. Perceptions of good teaching influenced students towards

deep, and perceptions of heavy workload and inappropriate assessment towards surface,

approaches to study (Lizzio , Wilson , & Simons, 2002). Also, research on students'

approaches to learning in higher education has consistently demonstrated strong relationships

between approaches to studying and perceptions of the learning environment (Kreber, 2003).

Moreover, the viewpoints of students regarding the environment of learning may help predict

learning outcomes. Students' perceptions of their learning environment were a strong

predictor of learning outcomes (Lizzio , Wilson , & Simons, 2002). Wilson & Fowler (2005)

stated that students who considered themselves as more typically deep in their approach to

learning were consistent in their approaches across the different environments, however,

students who reported themselves as more typically surface were influenced to adopt deeper

processing strategies in the action learning design. Students explained this deep shift in terms

of the greater expectations of learner activity and responsibility in the action learning design

(Wilson & Fowler, 2005).

4
 Hancock, Bray, & Nason (2002) reported that matching high conceptual-level students

with student-centered instruction and low conceptual-level students with teacher-centered

instruction enhanced students' achievement and motivation in the classroom. In addition,

regardless of conceptual level, students exposed to student-centered instruction showed

greater motivation than did students exposed to teacher-centered instruction (Hancock, Bray,

& Nason, 2002). Lea, Stephenson, & Troy (2003) showed that students generally held very

positive views of student-centered learning. However, they were unsure as to whether current

resources were adequate to support the effective implementation of such approach.

Evidence shows that conceptions of teaching, learning, and knowing are deeply rooted

in specific cultural antecedents and social structures, and affirms that the entire process of

evaluation of teaching must be recognized as a cultural and value-laden interpretation of all

that we observe (Pratt, 1999). According to Bartram (2007), when students' perceptions were

compared to those of teaching staff, the results revealed the following: (1) specific social

support mechanisms were identified by the students, and (2) teaching staff articulate a more

general awareness of growing student needs and dependency on staff.

Several recent studies on student learning in higher education reported on dissonant

forms of contextualized learning engagement. One of these studies was the study of Wisker

(2003), who indicates that dissonance in research seen as a form of learning produces

potentially significant difficulties for students at different stages in their work. These

difficulties emerge principally when developing a proposal, deciding on research

methodologies, developing and maintaining links between findings, and analysis and

conclusions. Also, Prosser et. al. (2003), reported that when students showed a higher quality

learning experience, the relationship between approaches to teaching and perceptions of the

teaching context were consonant, controversy, when they showed a lower quality learning

experience, the relationship between approaches to teaching and perceptions of the teaching

5
environment were more dissonant. In addition, when more senior teachers report these

dissonant experiences of teaching, their students adopt approaches to learning aimed at

reproduction rather than understanding. Therefore, it appears that similar structural relations

between aspects of student experiences of learning apply to teachers' experiences of teaching.

As indicated by Struyven, et al., (2005), students hold strong views about different

types of assessment and evaluation. They add that students' perceptions about assessment

significantly influence their approaches to learning and studying, and equally, their

approaches to study influence the ways in which they perceive assessment and evaluation.

Trotter (2006) concluded that continuous summative assessment had an impact on student

motivation, their approach to learning, and the change to their learning environment.

MacLellan (2001) showed that there was a significant difference of perception between

undergraduate students and teachers regarding assessment practices.

In the meantime, Struyven, et al., (2005) indicate that students favor multiple-choice

format exams to essay type questions. However, when compared with more innovative

assessment methods, students call the fairness of these well-known evaluation modes into

question (Struyven, et al., (2005). Nesbit & Burton (2006) found an interaction between the

grade received and negative justice perceptions, poor performers with negative justice

perceptions were more likely to have lower subsequent self-efficacy and satisfaction than

those who did not have injustice perceptions. However, self-efficacy rose for those who had

negative justice perceptions if they also received moderate to high performance feedback

(Nesbit & Burton, 2006).

Regarding the impact of assessment feedback on undergraduates, Higgins, Hartley, &

Skelton (2002) indicate that students seem to value feedback which simply provides them

with correct answers. Many students adopt more conscientious approach, and they are

motivated intrinsically and seek feedback which may enable to engage with their subject in a

6
deep way (Higgins, Hartley, & Skelton, 2002). Feedback to students is essential for effective

learning, but there is little empirical information on what kind of feedback is best. Huxham

(2007) identified two types of feedback, that provided by model answers, and that provided

by personal comments. Most of students wanted both kinds of feedback, but that there was a

preference for personal over model feedback, however, there were highly significant

differences between the mean scores achieved in examinations, with students performing

better in model answer questions (Huxham, 2007).

The main ideas of the studies in the literature show that the professor provides a major

input in the learning experience and academic achievement of students. But, it must be taken

into consideration that a professor is not a major input, but only provider of the major input.

Because the major input in the teaching and learning process is the student, and teachers must

have a comprehended understanding of how student learning happens and what their roles in

helping students perform sufficient learning. The main aim of teaching is to make student

learning possible, and good teaching encourages high quality student learning.

As mentioned previously, learning dimensions and academic belief systems represent

significant factors that affect student learning and achievement. To improve the quality of

higher education learning and teaching, the effects of these factors should be determined.

Therefore, in order to determine the essential factors affecting student learning and academic

achievement, opinions of both students and professors must be explored. The present study

aims to investigate the perceptions of a sample of undergraduate students and professors at

Taiz University concerning learning dimensions influencing students learning and academic

achievement as well.

Objectives

The objectives of the study were to: (1) develop a mean rank ordering of the 24

dimensions affecting learning, for both the undergraduate students and professors, (2) identify

7
the similarities and differences between the two groups of participants, and (3) determine the

learning dimensions that students and professors significantly differ on.

Significance of the study

The findings of the present study will be used for the improvement of the higher

education teaching and learning quality. Identifying factors influencing undergraduate

students' learning and achievement will be very useful for teaching staff to seriously judge

approaches and techniques used to teach and evaluate students. This, in turn, will lead to

enhance the learning environment and enable students to do a better learning.

Research questions

1. What are the learning dimensions influencing learning and academic achievement of

undergraduate students?

2. Is there a difference in importance ratings between undergraduate students and professors?

3. What learning dimensions do undergraduate students and professors differ on?

Methodology

Sample

Two hundred and ten undergraduate students were randomly chosen from the faculties

of education, science, and administrative sciences at Taiz University, in the academic year

2006-2007. Of these students, 24.76% were first year, 25.24% were second year, 24.29%

were third year, and 25.71% were fourth year students. At the same time, a total of 58

professors at the university also participated in this study (full professors = 11, associate

professors = 16, and assistant professors = 31).

Instrument

A survey instrument was administrated to identify learning dimensions influencing

academic performance within the classroom environment. In the survey, respondents were

asked to provide information on individual background characteristics. They also completed a

8
24-item self-report instrument used to measure the expected degree of importance for each

learning dimensions. Respondents were asked to rate each item according to its importance by

using the following scale: 1 = very low level of importance; 2 = low level of importance; 3 =

average level of importance; 4 = high level of importance; and 5 = extremely high level of

importance. Questionnaires were distributed to the participations in the academic year

2006/2007. Both students and professors completed the questionnaires in week 3 of second

semester, 2007.

The survey instrument was driven from O'Toole, Spinelli, and Wetzel (2000), except

the item "professor's concern of instructional technologies" which was added by the author,

with reference to the evaluations of 5 experts. Also, since all offered courses at Taiz

University are requirements, the item "whether it is required or elective" was modified to

"whether it is a major or non-major course" in order to fit with the status at Taiz University.

The items of the survey can be grouped into two groups: The first group includes 15 items

over which the professors have control. Specifically these items are: 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 12, 13, 14,

16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, and 24 (see Table 3). The second group includes 9 items that the

professors have no control over or can control only indirectly, which are: 1, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 15,

21, and 23. In the survey, a mean score of 4 or higher indicated that a particular factor was

either rated very important or extremely important for learning and academic achievement.

Regarding the validity of the instrument, content validity is the only type of validity

for which the evidence is logical rather than statistical and it is difficult to separate content

validity from other types of validity (Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 1989). To determine the surveys'

validity, the technique of content-related validity was used, and according to the opinions of

the experts, the author attempted to determine whether the survey has been constructed

adequately. Also, test-retest reliability is relatively easy to evaluate (Kaplan & Saccuzzo,

9
1989). Test-retest method was used to determine the reliability of the survey. The coefficient

of 0.79 was considered a highly acceptable indicator of the reliability of this survey.

Data Analysis

The mean and median scores were computed for each dimension, and a rank ordering

was obtained. The rankings were based upon the mean score for each of the questions. A

series of t- tests was used to identify whether there were significant differences among mean

scores of the two groups.

Results

Table 1: Learning dimensions and mean scores for students

Learning Dimensions Mean
Professor's fairness/quality of exams 4.549*
Professor's presentation clarity 4.442*
Professor's communication skills 4.294*
Professor's knowledge of subject 4.286*
Course's intellectual challenge 4.261*
Clarity of course objectives 4.246*
Professor's stimulation of interest 4.182*
Professor's encouragement of discussion 3.900
Class size 3.868
Professor's availability and helpfulness 3.739
Professor's concern for instructional technologies 3.526
Professor's course organization 3.420
Relevance/importance of subject 3.396
Importance of course supplements 3.387
Professor's enthusiasm for teaching 3.375
Professor's concern for class progress 3.362
Professor's sense of humor 3.240
Importance of textbook 3.097
Attitude of classmates toward learning 3.084
Whether it is a major or non-major course 3.081
Professor's concern for students as individuals 2.995
Hour of day class meet 2.841
Attendance policy 2.789
Speed/feedback of exams 2.710
Note: * = A dimension that is statistically equivalent to
top dimension.

Table 1 shows the ranked mean scores of undergraduate students, and Table 2 shows

ranked mean scores of professors. Seven of the dimensions were ranked by the students as

10
most important, while those ranked by professors as most important were only six

dimensions. Students ranked the fairness/quality of the exam first and the professors ranked

this dimension fifth. The first dimension of high importance for the professors was the

professor's knowledge of subject but the students ranked this dimension fourth.

Table 2: Learning dimensions and mean scores for professors

Learning Dimensions Mean
Professor's knowledge of subject 4.295*
Professor's communication skills 4.291*
Class size 4.287*
Professor's presentation clarity 4.283*
Professor's stimulation of interest 4.156*
Professor's enthusiasm for teaching 4.058*
Professor's fairness/quality of exams 3.799
Professor's concern for instructional technologies 3.696
Course’s intellectual challenge 3.605
Professor's course organization 3.509
Professor's encouragement of discussion 3.491
Attendance policy 3.445
Clarity of course objectives 3.360
Relevance/importance of subject 3.338
Speed/feedback of exams 3.306
Importance of course supplements 3.267
Importance of textbook 3.118
Professor's concern for students as individuals 3.044
Professor's sense of humor 2.981
Whether it is a major or non-major course 2.960
Professor's concern for class progress 2.889
Professor's availability and helpfulness 2.548
Attitude of classmates toward learning 2.489
Hour of day class meet 2.326
Note: * = A dimension that is statistically equivalent to
top dimension.

As seen in Table 3, t-test showed that significant differences were found in mean

scores of the two groups. The two groups significantly differed on 10 of the 24 dimensions.

The positive "t" value indicated that the mean score for the students was higher than the mean

score for the professors, and this was true for 6 of the 10 dimensions. Two of these 6

dimensions concerned the characteristics of the professor, other two dimensions are interested

in course matters, one dimension is interested in attitude of classmates toward learning, and

11
the last dimension concerned the hour of day class meets. Meanwhile, on four of the ten

dimensions, the mean score for the professors was higher than the mean score for the

students. These dimensions were: class size, professor's enthusiasm for teaching, attendance

policy, and speed/feedback of exams.

Table 3: Learning dimensions, t values, and significance levels

No Learning dimensions t p
1 Class size -5.42 0.00
2 Speed/feedback of exams -5.19 0.00
3 Professor's fairness/quality of exams +4.17 0.00
4 Attitude of classmates toward learning +3.88 0.00
5 Professor's enthusiasm for teaching -4.83 0.00
6 Attendance policy -4.09 0.00
7 Professor's availability and helpfulness +3.65 0.00
8 Course’s intellectual challenge +3.62 0.00
9 Clarity of course objectives +3.05 0.00
10 Hour of day class meet +2.74 0.01
11 Whether it is a major or non-major course +1.69 0.15
12 Professor's presentation clarity +1.43 0.11
13 Professor's concern for students as individuals -1.29 0.18
14 Professor's stimulation of interest +1.08 0.24
15 Importance of textbook -1.07 0.36
16 Professor's concern for class progress +0.65 0.33
17 Professor's course organization -0.63 0.59
18 Professor's communication skills +0.62 0.82
19 Professor's concern for instructional technologies -0.54 0.41
20 Professor's knowledge of subject -0.52 0.49
21 Relevance/importance of subject +0.42 0.65
22 Professor's encouragement of discussion +0.16 0.84
23 Importance of course supplements +0.13 0.93
24 Professor's sense of humor +0.09 0.85
Note: Ranking of dimensions is based on t-value.
Discussion

This study demonstrated that undergraduate students and professors believed

professors provided major input into the learning process, and had similar opinions on factors

influencing learning. Both students and professors agreed on four of five top factors supposed

important to student learning, namely, presentation clarity, communication skills, knowledge

of subject, and stimulation of interest. This result is generally consistent with the previous

study of O'Toole, Spinelli, & Wetzel, (2000), demonstrating that both students and teaching

12
staff almost agreed on the major factors influencing students' learning. This result also is

supported by previous research, Clark & Iyer (1998); Rodrigues & Thompson (2001) reported

that interpersonal and communication skills were extremely important factors influencing

learning. Also, motivation and stimulation of interest have remarkable advantages on students

learning and achievement (Feldman, 1989; Guthrie, et. al., 2006). In the meantime, Schwartz

(1990) reports that motivating student enthusiasm and interest leads to create effective

learning.

The dimension, professor's fairness/quality of exams, was ranked by the students as

the most important learning dimension. This may indicate that undergraduate students seem to

make a connection between professor's fairness/quality of exams and grades received. Such

idea supports previous research (Schmidt, et. al., 2003) demonstrating that grade outcomes

relate significantly to students' perceptions of professor's fairness. Students also rated course's

intellectual challenge and clarity of course objectives higher in importance for academic

achievement than the professors did. Course's intellectual challenge is directly related to the

qualification of the professor. This may raise the interpretation that the qualification of the

professor may be important for students as the fairness, availability and helpfulness.

Mroreover, students thought that classmates' attitudes toward learning could be important for

their learning and achievement.

From the professors' point of view, findings suggest that a professor should be

enthusiastic for teaching. Professors also saw the speed/frequency of exams as more

important and significant to the learning process and academic achievement than the students

did. But the students ranked the fairness/quality of exams first. Therefore, it could be

concluded that the perceptions of the professors and students about the way of the assessment

and evaluation were different. This result is supported with the findings of the previous study

of MacLellan (2001), reporting a significant difference of perception between students and

13
teachers regarding assessment practices. In the meantime, professors considered attendance

policy as a significant to students' learning and achievement while students did not. But, the

viewpoint of professors is supported by Halpern (2007), demonstrating a significant positive

correlation between attendance and academic achievement.

As mentioned previously, both students and professors who participated in this study

agreed on four of the top five dimensions. On the other hand, regarding the last five

dimensions of low importance, results showed that two of these last five dimensions were the

same for both groups, these dimensions were whether it is a major or non-major course and

hour of day class meets, and these were factors that the professors have no control over.

The main aim of this study was to determine the opinions of the undergraduate

students and professors on factors that affect student learning and academic achievement. The

study demonstrated that both the undergraduate students and professors felt that professor

provided a major input in the undergraduate student learning and academic achievement.

Furthermore, the related literature and the present study show that the professor has an

important role in creating the suitable environment for students to do active learning.

Suggestions

On the light of the results, the following 5 suggestions were drawn:

1. Universities should take into consideration the results of this study for further academic

planning.

2. Professors must take into consideration that students' learning is not just about acquiring

high level of knowledge, but how students use what they learn properly.

3. Professors should understand the important roles of motivation and stimulation of interests

in enhancing student's learning.

4. Professors should take into consideration that the quality of assessment and appropriate

feedback is one of the key features of good and effective teaching in higher education.

14
5. Further research might also include the effect of learning dimensions on such students'

high-order abilities as critical thinking, problem-solving ability, and creativity.

15
References

Bartram, B., (2007). The sociocultural needs of international students in higher education: a

comparison of staff and student views, Journal of Studies in International Education,

11(2), 205-214.

Blackwell, P.J., (2003). Student learning: education's field of dreams, Phi Delta Kappan,

84(5), 362-367.

Cassidy, S., & Eachus, P., (2000). Learning style, academic belief systems, self-report student

proficiency and academic achievement in higher education, Educational Psychology:

An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 20(3), 307-322.

Clark, D., & Iyer, V.M., (1998). Criteria for recruitment as assistant professor of accounting

in colleges and universities, Journal of Education for Business, 74(1), 6-10.

Creamer, D.G., (2003). Research needed on the use of CAS standards and guidelines, College

Student Affairs Journal, 22(2), 109-124.

Eraut, M., (1994). Developing Professional Knowledge and Competence. Brighton: Falmer

Press.

Feldman, K. A., (1989). The association between student ratings of specific instructional

dimensions and student achievement: refining and extending the synthesis of data from

multisection validity studies, Research in Higher Education, 30(6), 583-645.

Guthrie, J.T.; Wigfield, A.; Humenick, N.M.; Perencevich, K.C.; Taboada, A.; & Barbosa, P.,

(2006). Influences of stimulating tasks on reading motivation and comprehension

Journal of Educational Research, 99(4), 232-245.

Halpern, N., (2007). The impact of attendance and student characteristics on academic

achievement: findings from an undergraduate business management, Journal of Further

and Higher Education, 31(4), 335-349.

16
Hancock, D.R.; Bray, M.; & Nason, S.A., (2002). Influencing university students'

achievement and motivation in a technology course, Journal of Educational Research,

95(6), 365-73.

Higgins, R.; Hartley, P.; & Skelton, A., (2002).The conscientious consumer: reconsidering the

role of assessment feedback in student learning, Studies in Higher Education, 27(1), 53-

64.

Huxham, M., (2007). Fast and effective feedback: are model answers the answer? Assessment

& Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(6), 601-611.

Jackson, D.L.; Teal, C.R.; Raines, S.J.; Nansel, T.R.; Burdsal, C S.; & Force, R.C., (1999).

The dimensions of students' perceptions of teaching effectiveness. Educational and

Psychological Measurement, 59(4), 580-596.

Kaplan, R.M., & Saccuzzo, D.P., (1989). Psychological Testing: Principles, Applications and

Issues. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company: USA.

Kreber, C., (2003). The relationship between students' course perception and their approaches

to studying in undergraduate science courses: A Canadian experience, Higher

Education Research & Development, 22(1), 57-75.

Lea, S.; Stephenson., D.; & Troy, J., (2003). Higher education students' attitudes to student-

centered learning: beyond educational bulimia, Studies in Higher Education, 28(3), 321-

334.

Lizzio A., Wilson K., & Simons, R., (2002). University students' perceptions of the learning

environment and academic outcomes: implications for theory and practice.

Studies in Higher Education, 27(1), 27-52.

MacLellan, E., (2001). Assessment for Learning: the differing perceptions of tutors and

students, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(1), 307-318.

17
Marriott, P., (2002). Longitudinal study of undergraduate accounting students' learning style

preferences at two UK universities, Accounting Education, 11(1), 43-62.

Nesbit, P., & Burton, S., (2006). Student justice perceptions following assignment feedback,

Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(6), 655-670.

O’Toole, D.M., Spinelli, M., & Wetzel, J.N., (2000). The important learning dimensions in

the school of business: A survey of students and faculty. Journal of Education for

Business, 75(6), 338-342.

Pratt, D.D.; Kelly, M.; & Wong, W. S.S., (1999). Chinese conceptions of effective teaching in

Hong Kong: towards culturally sensitive evaluation of teaching. International Journal

of Lifelong Education, 8(4), 241-258.

Prosser. M., Ramsden, P., Trigwell, K., & Martin, E., (2003). Dissonance in experience of

teaching and its relation to the quality of student learning, Studies in Higher Education,

28(1), 37-48.

Ramsden, P., (1999). Learning to Teach in Higher Education. New York: Routledge.

Rodrigues, S. & Thompson, I., (2001) Cohesion in science lesson discourse: clarity, relevance

and sufficient information, International Journal of Science Education, 23(9), 929-940.

Sander, P.; Stevenson, K.; King, M.; & Coates, D., (2000). University students' expectations

of teaching, Studies in Higher Education, 25(3), 309-323.

Schmidt, T.; Houston, M.; Bettencourt, L.; & Boughton, P., (2003). The impact of voice and

justification on students' perceptions of fairness, Journal of Marketing Education, 25(2),

177-186.

Schwartz, D., (1990). A remedy for student boredom: stimulation through simulation, Social

Studies Review, 29(2), 79-85.

18
Struyven, K.; Dochy, F.; & Janssens, S., (2005). Students' perceptions about evaluation and

assessment in higher education: a review, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher

Education, 30(4), 325-341.

Trotter, E., (2006). Student perceptions of continuous summative assessment, Assessment &

Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(5), 505-521.

Wilson, K., & Fowler, J., (2005). Assessing the impact of learning environments on students'

approaches to learning: comparing conventional and action learning designs,

Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(1), 87-101.

Wisker, G.; Robinson, G.; Trafford, V.; Creighton, E.; & Warnes, M., (2003). Recognizing

and overcoming dissonance in postgraduate student research, Studies in Higher

Education, 28 (1), 91-105.

19