Instr Sci (2012) 40:159–172

DOI 10.1007/s11251-011-9171-8

Is the Study Process Questionnaire (SPQ) a good

predictor of academic achievement? Examining
the mediating role of achievement-related classroom
behaviours

Jeanette Lyn Fung Choy • Glen O’Grady • Jerome I. Rotgans

Received: 10 March 2010 / Accepted: 11 May 2011 / Published online: 15 June 2011
Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Abstract Studies have shown that the Study Process Questionnaire (SPQ)—which
provides a measure of student approaches to learning—is a relatively weak predictor of
academic achievement. The present study sought to explore whether students’ achieve-
ment-related classroom behaviours, as observed by teachers, can be used as a mediator
between student approaches to learning and academic achievement. The SPQ was
administered to 1,608 students enrolled in six different diploma programmes offered by a
polytechnic in Singapore. Data were analysed by means of correlation and path analysis.
In line with existing studies, the results revealed that student approaches to learning was
a weak predictor of academic achievement. However, achievement-related classroom
behaviours turned out to be a significant mediator between student approaches to learning
and academic achievement, effectively doubling the explained variance in academic
achievement. Implications of these findings for using the SPQ are discussed.

Keywords Approaches to learning
Study process questionnaire
Achievement-related

classroom behaviours
Student achievement
Structural equation modelling

Introduction

How students approach a learning task is expected to determine the quality of learning
outcomes. For instance, Marton and Saljö (1976) were the first researchers to make the

J. L. F. Choy (&)
G. O’Grady

Centre for Educational Development, Republic Polytechnic,
9, Woodlands Avenue 9, Woodlands 738964, Singapore
e-mail: [email protected]
G. O’Grady
e-mail: [email protected]

J. I. Rotgans
Centre for Research in Pedagogy and Practice, National Institute of Education,
1 Nanyang Walk, Singapore 637616, Singapore
e-mail: [email protected]

123
160 J. L. F. Choy et al.

distinction between approaches to learning by distinguishing between deep and surface

learners. Deep learners are students who have the intention to look for meaning in the study
materials by closely examining the content to sieve out the underlying concepts and
relating these concepts to everyday life and one’s prior knowledge. Surface learners, on the
other hand, are students who have the intention to only meet task requirements such as
fulfilling course requirements or passing the examination. The most common strategy
adopted by surface learners is rote learning or memorising the study materials. The ten-
dency is to remember the concepts or symbols that represent the knowledge without
understanding the meaning of these concepts and symbols, and hence they fail to inter-
nalise information. Generally it is assumed that the deep approach to learning results in
‘‘higher quality learning outcomes’’ and the surface approach to ‘‘lower quality learning
outcomes’’ (Gijbels et al. 2005). In short, students that are surface learners are expected to
perform less well in school as compared to deep learners. Besides the distinction between
the surface approach and deep approach to learning, Biggs (1976) and Ramsden (1981)
introduced a third approach, the achieving (or strategic) approach to learning. Achieving
learners (or strategic learners) refers to learners who aim to get high marks by optimising
their efforts and by organising their time and study strategies to earn a good grade. Given
that achieving students’ focus is on doing well on the test, it is expected that they will
generally perform better than surface learners (Biggs 1987a).
The concept of the three approaches to learning has been operationalized in many studies
across different disciplines, educational contexts, and countries to measure how students
generally approach learning and to make predictions about their academic achievement.
One of the instruments that has extensively been used is the Study Process Questionnaire
(SPQ) developed by Biggs (1987b). The SPQ is a 42-item self-report instrument that
measures students’ deep, surface, and achieving approach to learning. Many studies were
conducted with the SPQ, which generally revealed relatively weak correlations between
surface, deep and achieving approaches and students’ academic achievement.
There are several studies that found no relationship at all between student approaches to
learning and academic achievement. For instance, Groves (2005) conducted a study with
second year students from a medical school and found no significant correlation between
SPQ scores and academic achievement. In another study conducted by Jones and Jones
(1996) with first-year Chinese health-care students in Hong Kong, no significant correlation
was found as well. Likewise, Gijbels et al. (2005) conducted a study with second-year law
students to gain more insight into the relationships between students’ approaches to learning
and students’ academic achievement. The results replicated the findings from Groves; there
were no significant correlations between the SPQ scales and students’ academic achieve-
ment. In a longitudinal study conducted by Wilding and Andrews (2006), students
responded to the SPQ 1 month before enrolment into a university college and again mid
way through their second year of study. Similarly, no significant correlations between the
SPQ scales and academic achievement were found. Each of these four studies concluded
that students’ approaches to learning do not predict students’ academic achievement.
However, in a large-scale study based on data collected from first-year accounting
students, Ramburuth and Mladenovic (2004) found a negative and weak, yet significant,
correlation between the surface scale of the SPQ and academic achievement (r = -.09,
p = .01). Also, Snelgrove and Slater (2003) found a weak but significant correlation
between the surface scale of the SPQ and nursing students’ academic achievement on an
examination (r = -.22, p \ .05). In yet another study with accounting students, Booth
et al. (1999) found a significant correlation between the surface approach to learning and
academic achievement (r = -.24, p = .01). Unlike the first three studies, the results of

123
Is the SPQ a good predictor of academic achievement? 161

these three studies suggest that there is a relationship—albeit weak—between approaches

to learning and academic achievement.
Contrary to the studies mentioned above, a longitudinal study conducted by Zeegers
(1999) found a relatively strong correlation of .41 (p \ .05) between deep approach to
learning and academic achievement. The results of their study suggest that a deep approach
to learning could be used to explain almost 17% of the variance in academic achievement.
This is the first study that was able to explain more that 5% of the variance in academic
achievement based on the SPQ scales. However, the caveat to this outcome is that the
relatively stronger correlation of .41 (p \ .05) was observed at the end of a three-year
longitudinal study. The longitudinal study surveyed 200 science students in five different
stages of their academic life at a university to evaluate the predictive validity of the
approaches to learning on learning outcomes. Over the years, the number of students that
responded to the study decreased to 60 students at the final stage of the study (for which the
higher correlation coefficient was found). The correlation coefficient between deep
approach and Grade Point Average (GPA) was initially weak r = .11 (p \ .05), but
gradually increased over the 3 years to r = .41 (p \ .05). This increase in the magnitude
of the correlation coefficient could imply (1) that students become indeed more deep
learners over the 3 years of study or (2) that only the better students responded to the
survey. Astin (1970) and Neilson et al. (1978), observed the latter in their studies where
they found that students who responded to follow-up surveys are more motivated and tend
to do better academically as compared to those who do not respond. The same may have
happened in the Zeeger study.
Finally, Watkins (2001) conducted a meta-analysis with 55 independent samples
including 27,078 respondents from 15 countries. The studies that were included in the
meta-analysis used various self-report instruments that measure students’ approaches to
learning with the SPQ used in one-third of the reported studies. Since the present study is
concerned specifically with the SPQ, only the correlations between the SPQ scales and
academic achievement are reported here. The meta-analysis revealed the following average
correlations between the approaches to learning scales and academic achievement: surface
approach (r = -.14), deep approach (r = .16), achieving (r = .16). Overall, this meta-
analysis confirms the findings from the earlier mentioned studies that the relationship
between students’ approaches to learning and academic achievement is generally weak,
explaining only about 1–3% of the variance in academic achievement.
The results of the above studies suggest that student approaches to learning, as measured
by the SPQ, is a relatively weak predictor of academic achievement. The question is why is
this the case? An answer to this question may lie in what has been referred to by various
researchers as constructive alignment of learning objectives, teaching and learning activi-
ties, and assessment task (Biggs 1992; Biggs et al. 2001; Biggs and Tang 2007). For
instance, if the intended learning goals (and corresponding learning task) demand a deep
conceptual understanding of a scientific principle but the assessment constitutes a mere
reproduction of isolated facts about the scientific principle, then one could speak of a
constructive misalignment because the assessment is inadequate in determining students’
thorough understanding of the topic as set out by the intended learning goals. Theoretically,
the reverse could also be the case; the assessment task is designed to measure students’ deep
understanding of a topic, but the intended learning goals and the learning task demand
minimal in-depth understanding of the topic. Although the latter scenario is possible, the
assessment method has been found to be the most salient factor influencing student
approaches to learning (Biggs 1973, 1989; Marton and Saljo 1976; Ramsden 1992; Scouller
and Prosser 1994). As such, the low correlations in the above mentioned studies may be due

123
162 J. L. F. Choy et al.

to inadequate assessments and assessment standards. Watkins (2001), for instance, argued
that the low correlation is mainly due to teachers having different criteria in assessing
students’ performance. He warns that it is possible that the assessments do not necessarily
reflect the application of deep learning strategies. This implies that in order to have an
adequate measure of students’ approaches to learning, the assessment system needs to
measure students’ corresponding learning behaviours that reflect surface, deep and
achieving approaches to learning. It may be that most assessments, however, do not measure
students’ learning behaviours, but mainly their knowledge retention (Choppin 1990).
Because of this, we suggest that it may be more appropriate to include assessment
measures, which provide a truer picture of students’ approaches to learning in the class-
room. It may be possible that self-report measures of students’ approaches to learning need
to manifest themselves in an actual classroom first before they can be considered as an
adequate predictor of academic achievement. In other words, students may report that they
generally perceive themselves as deep learners, but that does not necessarily mean that
they apply these deep learning strategies in the actual classroom. Only if they demonstrate
the appropriate learning behaviours in the classroom (e.g., being actively involved in
searching for meaning, relating and applying concepts to real life examples and engaging
in discussions in identifying the main ideas with others), they will perform well on the
assessment because they have translated their self-reported approaches to learning into
actual behaviour.
Based on the above, we propose that the relationship between approaches to learning
and academic achievement is mediated by students’ actual learning behaviours in the
classroom, which we will refer to as achievement-related classroom behaviours. This
observational measure of classroom behaviours we used in the present study captured (1)
the level of students’ engagement in the learning process, (2) the extent to which they
engaged and persisted in self-directed learning, (3) the degree to which they participated
in group discussions and work in teams, and (4) their understanding of what they had
learned. Teachers observed and subsequently generated a performance judgement based
on these four attributes (see Appendix for a detailed description of the rubrics used).
Students’ engagement in the learning process captured their willingness and active par-
ticipation during the lesson. For instance, teachers observed how actively students
engaged in trying to identify and formulate the key concepts to be learned, be able to
provide a coherent description of the learning objectives and their commitment to
understand the learning task. Students’ self-directed learning entailed their ability to
independently search for information and evaluate its usefulness in relation to the
learning task. In short, it is a student’s ability to find, organize, analyse and evaluate
information. The degree to which students engaged in collaborative learning was deter-
mined by their observable interactions with other peers during the lesson. This attribute
requires the student to play an active role in the team and to remain committed in helping
the team to become successful, both in terms of completing the assigned task as well as
encouraging healthy relationship among team members. The quality of students’ under-
staning was observed in the way they verbalised their thought processes and their ability
to constructively comment as well as critiques other team members’ ideas. For instance,
the students were expected to demonstrate an inquisitive attitude, generate many useful
questions in the course of the lesson, actively listen to other team members and provide
constructive feedback to their ideas.
Gijbels et al. (2008) observed that students change their approach to learning based on
the way they perceived the learning environment. A perceived heavy workload, perceived
good teaching, clear goals and more freedom in learning were related to deep approach to

123
Is the SPQ a good predictor of academic achievement? 163

learning. However, the study did not address to what extent these elements mediate the
relation between assessment and students’ approaches to learning. With the present study,
we propose to use an observational measure of students’ actual learning behaviours instead
rather than a self-report measure, which may be more adequate as a mediator. Although the
present study is not the first to suggest a mediator variable to improve and explain the
relationship between approaches to learning and academic achievement, it is the first to our
best knowledge that used an observational variable of students’ actual behaviours in the
classroom.
In summary, the present study examined whether achievement-related classroom
behaviours is an adequate mediator between student’s approaches to learning and academic
achievement. In addition, this study examined which approach to learning has a greater
influence on how well students perform academically. To that end, the SPQ was admin-
istered to 1,608 students at a polytechnic in Singapore. Correlational analysis, as well as
structural equation modelling was used to examine the relationships. By doing so we
expected to cast more light on the seemingly problematic relationship between the SPQ
scales and academic achievement.

Method

Participants

A total of 1,608 students (56% female) with an average age of 18 (SD = 1.4) years
participated in the study. The students were enrolled in a polytechnic in Singapore.

Measures

Study Process Questionnaire (SPQ)

The SPQ (Biggs 1987c) was administered to assess the extent to which students used the
deep, surface and achieving approaches to learning. The SPQ is a 42-item self-report
instrument consisting of three main scales: (1) deep approach to learning, (2) surface
approach to learning and (3) achieving approach to learning. All items were scored on a
5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (never or only rarely true of me) to 5 (always or
almost true me). Further, the two subscales that determine each main scale are determined
by measuring students’ attitudes towards studies (motives) and their usual ways of studying
(strategy). Thus, the SPQ is designed to provide six subscales scores: Surface Motive and
Strategy, Deep Motive and Strategy and Achieving Motive and Strategy. The validity of
the SPQ was established by means of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Items of the SPQ
were clustered into groups representing the six subscales. This technique is called ‘‘item
parceling’’ (Bandalos and Finney 2001; Little et al. 2002). Item Parceling is a measurement
practice that is commonly used in latent variable analyses. According to Little et al. (2002),
a parcel can be defined as an aggregate-level indicator, comprised of the average of two or
more items. For further analysis we parcelled all items belonging to subscales (i.e., six
parcels were formed). This procedure has been applied to the SPQ in previous studies
(Biggs et al. 2001; Snelgrove and Slater 2003; Zeegers 2002). The data fitted the model
very well: Chi-square/df ratio = .12, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .00. The reliability of the

123
164 J. L. F. Choy et al.

SPQ was determined by means of the Cronbach’s a, which was .74 for surface learning
approach .87 for deep learning approach and .86 for achieving approach (average SPQ.82).
Overall the construct validity and reliability was deemed adequate.

Achievement-related classroom behaviours

This measure was based on teacher observations which captured (1) the level of students’
engagement in the learning process, (2) the extent to which they engaged and persisted in
self-directed learning, (3) the degree to which they participated in group discussions and
work in teams, and (4) their understanding of what they had learned. A more detailed
description of the observational assessment criteria can be found in the rubrics in the
Appendix. A grade was assigned to each student after every lesson for all subjects over one
semester (i.e., 16 observations per subject). Since some students were absent for some
classes we encountered missing values (missing cells were 3.2% of cases). Since structural
equation analysis does not allow having missing values, we used EM imputation to esti-
mate and replace the missing values. This approach is admissible as long as the number of
the missing cells is less than 5% (Graham and Hofer 2000). The grade was reflected on a
5-point performance scale: 0 (fail), 1 (conditional pass), 2 (acceptable), 3 (good), and 4
(excellent). The construct validity of this observational measure was established by means
of CFA. For each student there were 16 observational measures (or indicator variables),
which determined the latent variable achievement-related classroom behaviours. The data
fitted the model well: Chi-square/df ratio = 5.33, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .05. The reli-
ability of this measure was established by means of Cronbach’s alpha, which was .89.
These values are indicative of adequate construct validity and reliability.

Academic achievement

As an academic achievement measure, written tests of 30 min duration were conducted

every 4 weeks (totalling four test grades) over the semester for all subjects to measure
students’ understanding of the concepts learned. Most of the tests were a combination of
open-ended questions and multiple-choice questions. A grade was assigned to each student
for each test. Scores were distributed on a scale ranging from 0 to 4 with .5 increments: 0
(full fail), .5 (fail), 1.0 (conditional pass I), 1.5 (conditional pass II), 2.0 (acceptable), 2.5
(satisfactory), 3.0 (good), 3.5 (very good), and 4.0 (excellent). The construct validity of this
observational measure was established by means of CFA. For each student there were four
indicator variables, which determined the latent variable academic achievement. The data
fitted the model very well: Chi-square/df ratio = .02, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .00. The
reliability of this measure was established by means of Cronbach’s alpha, which was .72.
These values are indicative of adequate construct validity and reliability.

Procedure

The SPQ was administered online to all students 2 weeks before the end of the semester.
Both achievement-related classroom behaviours and academic achievement measures were
obtained from the institution’s registry database at the end of the semester. Overall mean
scores were calculated for the written achievement tests and the achievement-related
classroom behaviours as well as the mean scores for each subscale of the SPQ.

123
Is the SPQ a good predictor of academic achievement? 165

Analyses

In the studies mentioned earlier, almost all of them conducted correlation analysis to
examine the strength and direction of the linear relationship between students’ approaches
to learning and academic achievement. We followed this approach with the present study
by first calculating Pearson’s correlation coefficients to examine whether we could repli-
cate the findings from previous studies.
To determine if achievement-related classroom behaviours is indeed an adequate
mediator between student approaches to learning and academic achievement, we tested a
full and partial mediation model by means of structural equation modelling (SEM). We
evaluated the assumptions of multivariate normality and observed 31 multivariate outliers.
We removed the outliers from the subsequent analyses. We chose maximum likelihood
parameter estimation over other estimation methods because the data were distributed
normally. Chi-square accompanied by degrees of freedom, sample size, p value and the
root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) were used as indices of absolute fit
between the models and the data.
The Chi-square is a statistical measure to test the closeness of fit between the
achievement-related and predicted covariance matrix. A small Chi-square value, relative to
the degrees of freedom, indicates a good fit (Byrne 2001). A Chi-square/df ratio of less than
3 is considered to be indicative of a good fit. RMSEA is sensitive to model specification
and is minimally influenced by sample size and not overly affected by estimation method
(Fan et al. 1999). The lower the RMSEA value, the better the fit. A commonly reported cut-
off value is .06 (Hu and Bentler 1999). In addition to these absolute fit indices, the
comparative fit index (CFI) was calculated. The CFI value ranges from zero to one and a
value greater than .95 is conventionally considered a good model fit (Byrne 2001).

Results and discussion

As a first step in the analysis, we generated the correlation coefficients between the three
approaches to learning and academic achievement. See Table 1 for the correlation matrix.
Results revealed that there is a negative relationship between the surface approach to
learning and academic achievement (r = -.07, p = .01) and a positive relationship
between the deep approach to learning and achievement (r = .10, p = .00) as well as the
achieving approach to learning and academic achievement (r = .14, p = .00).
Similar to the findings of the previous studies mentioned, as well as the meta-analysis
by Watkins (2001), our data confirmed that the relationships between students’ approaches
to learning and academic achievement are generally weak, explaining less than 3% of the

Table 1 Correlation matrix and descriptive statistics of the SPQ and academic achievement (N = 1,639)
Mean (SD) (1) (2) (3) (4)

(1) Surface 43.32 (7.84) 1.00 .51** .61** -.07**

(2) Deep 45.71 (9.19) 1.00 .76** .10**
(3) Achieving 45.41 (9.57) 1.00 .14**
(4) Academic achievement 2.31 (.60) 1.00

SD standard deviation
** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed)

123
166 J. L. F. Choy et al.

Fig. 1 Path model depicting relationships between approach to learning, achievement-related classroom
behaviours and academic achievement. Note: numbers above the arrows represent standardised regression
weights. All standardized regression weights are statistically significant at the 1% level

variance in academic achievement. As such, the results of our study replicate the findings
of the existing studies that used the SPQ to predict students’ academic achievement.
We argued earlier that the weak correlations could be due to a misalignment between
students’ approaches to learning and how these approaches are assessed by means of
achievement tests. We proposed that the self-report measures of approaches to learning
need to translate themselves into actual classroom behaviours first in order to be an
adequate predictor of students’ academic achievement.
The results of the causal model in which we included a measure of achievement-related
classroom behaviours as a mediator, are depicted in Fig. 1.
The results of the analysis revealed that the data fitted the hypothesized model well,
Chi-square/df ratio = 2.26, p \ .01, CFI = .98, RMSEA = .03. All factor loadings were
statistically significant at the 1% level. In this model, about 32% of the variance in
achievement-related classroom behaviours could be explained by approaches to learning.
This is considerably more than in the reported studies in the literature.
In line with previous studies, the achieving approach was the strongest predictor of
achievement-related classroom behaviours (b = .61, p \ .01). Achieving learners are
versatile learners and they tend to adapt the way they approach learning tasks to what the
teachers or the assessment scheme demands in order to get good grades. As such, they get
cues from what they think they will be tested on. This finding is consistent with other
studies, whereby Biggs’ achieving approach to learning has consistently been shown to
have a higher positive relationship with academic performance. The high orientation
towards achieving approach to learning is not necessary a bad thing as studies have
indicated, particularly in an Asian context, it has been found that students adopt a wide
variety of strategies to understand the subject matter (Kember 1996, 2000).
Surface approach had a weak to medium strong inverse relationship with the
achievement-related classroom behaviours (b = -.37, p \ .01). This inverse relationship
was expected and indicates that students who follow a surface approach to learning do
generally demonstrate less engagement in the learning activities. This result is similar to

123
Is the SPQ a good predictor of academic achievement? 167

that obtained by Zeegers (1999), Watkins and Hattie (1981) and Ramburuth and Mlade-
novic (2004). It seems that the surface approach to learning has consistently shown to be a
very strong indicator on how well students will perform academically, albeit negatively.
An interesting finding is that the deep approach to learning also had a weak inverse
relationship with the achievement-related classroom behaviours (b = -.08, p \ .01). A
possible factor that might explain this negative relationship is how deep approach to
learning is being measured in SPQ.
Achievement-related classroom behaviours in turn was a strong predictor of academic
achievement (b = .42, q \ .01). In addition, surface approach to learning has a direct
inverse relation with academic achievement (b = .08, q \ .01). Together they explain
18% of the variance in academic achievement. It seems, however, that achievement-related
classroom behaviours has a higher impact on academic achievement. Thus, the result of the
path model lent support for our hypothesis that achievement-related classroom behaviours,
as observed by a teacher, are indeed an adequate mediator for the relationship between
students’ approaches to learning and academic achievement.

General discussion

The objective of this study was to investigate how approaches to learning, as measured by
the SPQ, are related to students’ academic achievement. Previous findings suggest that this
relationship is relatively weak. It was hypothesised that the relationship between approa-
ches to learning and achievement is mediated by achievement-related classroom behav-
iours. In addition, it was examined which approach to learning has the strongest influence
on how well students perform academically. To test the above hypothesis, the SPQ was
administered to a large cohort of 1,608 students that were enrolled in six different three-
year diploma programmes at a polytechnic in Singapore.
Our first analysis replicated the results of existing studies; the three approaches to
learning are relatively weak predictors of students’ academic achievement, explaining less
than 4% of the variance in academic achievement. The subsequent analysis revealed that
including achievement-related classroom behaviours turned out to be an adequate medi-
ator, significantly increasing the explained variance in academic achievement to about
18%. A small part of this variance is contributed by surface approach to learning. This
indicates that students that adopt a surface approach to learning, with the intention to only
meet task requirements and involving rote learning of the study materials, will not do well
academically. Overall, the results of the study suggest that the students’ approaches to
learning need to be translated into actual classroom behaviours before they can be used to
predict academic achievement.
An additional finding was that the deep approach to learning has a significant inverse
relationship, albeit weak, with achievement-related classroom behaviours. Our model also
shows that behaviours exhibited by students’ having strong tendency towards achieving
and surface approach to learning can be observed fairly well by the teachers. The positive
relationship between achieving approach to learning and surface approach to learning
found in this study are comparable to results found in other studies.
A rather unexpected finding was that the relationship between deep approach to learning
and achievement-related classroom behaviours is negative. Does it mean that the teachers
do not reward students who exhibited characteristics of a deep learner? To answer this
question, we examined the statements in the questionnaire further and noted some dif-
ferences in the manner the statements were being phrased to measure deep approach to

123
168 J. L. F. Choy et al.

learning as compared to the other two approaches to learning. Examining the statements
that are used to measure deep behaviours in the SPQ, we realised that they tended to be
more cognitive and philosophical in nature whereby it may not be that apparent in
classroom behaviour. This is in particular apparent to statements that are used to measure
deep motives. An example of such a statement is ‘‘I believe strongly that my main aim in
life is to discover my own philosophy and belief system and to act strictly in accordance
with it’’ and ‘‘My studies have changed my views about such things as politics, my
religion, and my philosophy of life’’. In comparison with deep approach to learning,
statements that are used to measure surface approach to learning tends to be more visible
and easier for both students and teachers to identify with. An example is ‘‘Lecturers
shouldn’t expect students to spend significant amounts of time studying material everyone
knows won’t be examined’’ and ‘‘Even when I have studied hard for a test, I worry that I
may not be able to do well in it’’. This is the same for the statements that are used to
measure achieving approach to learning. For instance, ‘‘I try to complete my given tasks as
soon as possible after they are given out’’ and ‘‘I would see myself basically as an
ambitious person and want to achieve top grades/position, whatever I do’’. What has been
able to produce a consistent outcome in predicting how well students will perform aca-
demically is surface approach to learning. As mentioned earlier, statements that are used to
measure surface and achieving approach to learning are more behavioural in nature. As
such, it is easier for students to identify with as they go through the SPQ.
The relationship between approach to learning and academic achievement is always of
great interest to educational practitioners and researchers. In this research, we were able to
develop a causal model to show that using the achievement-related classroom behaviours
as a mediator has effectively improved the variance explained in academic achievements
by more than 6 times (from 4 to 18%). Based on the findings of the study, it is recom-
mended that if one wish to make predictions of academic achievement it would be more
fruitful to used observational measures of students’ actual behaviours in the classroom.
Other determinants of academic success such as factors relating to cognitive and non-
cognitive predictors of academic achievements can be used as well. Ackerman and Heg-
gestad (1997) established that cognitive ability is one important determinant of academic
achievement. However, cognitive ability might lose their predictive power at higher level
of education (Ackerman et al. 2001) and is not able to account sufficiently for individual
differences in academic success. This leads to examining non-cognitive predictors, such as
personality traits, to predict academic achievements. To understand personality traits, the
Big Five model of personality is widely accepted and used model by many researchers. A
meta-analysis on the Big Five showed that out of the five independent dimensions of
personality, the dimension ‘‘Conscientiousness’’ correlates strongly and consistently with
academic success (O’Connor and Paunonen 2007).
The present study provides empirical evidence that teachers’ observation of how stu-
dents behave and learn in the classroom can effectively predict academic achievements.
Future studies may examine the role cognitive ability and personality traits play (in
combination with the observational measure) to further enhance the prediction of students’
academic achievement in a variety of educational settings.

Appendix

See Table 2.

123
 Is the SPQ a good predictor of academic achievement?
Table 2 Rubric for teacher’s observation of student performance
Grade A Grade B Grade C Grade D Grade F

Learning The student: The student: The student: The student: The student:
process 1. Identifies and clarifies all key 1. Identifies and clarify some key 1. Does not recognise the 1. Does not recognise 1. Does not recognise
terms and concepts in the problem terms and concepts in the problem importance of identifying and the importance of key terms and
statement statement clarifying key terms and key terms and concepts in the
2. Defines the problem, and can 2. Defines the problem, and can concepts in the problem concepts in the problem statement
formulate all key aspects of it in formulate some key aspects of it in statement problem statement 2. Does not read the
his/her own words his/her own words 2. Reads the problem, but has 2. Reads the problem, problem statement
3. Analyses the problem through 3. Analyses the problem through difficultly in formulating it but cannot formulate 3. Does not contribute
brainstorming and drawing on brainstorming and drawing on their into his/her own words it into his/her own to the brainstorming
their prior knowledge to come up prior knowledge but comes up with 3. Does not consistently words so therefore does not
with as many explanations as only a limited number of contribute to the 3. Does not contribute come up with any
possible for the problem explanations for the problem brainstorming and therefore to the brainstorming explanations
4. Produces a coherent description 4. Produces a description of the does not usually come up so therefore does not 4. Cannot produce a
of the learning objectives and learning objectives and ranks the with any explanations of the come up with any description of the
ranks the learning objects learning objects problem explanations learning objectives
4. Produces a description of the 4. Produces a
learning objectives incoherent
description of the
learning objectives
Self-directed The student: The student: The student: The student: The student:
learning 1. Consistently undertakes research 1. Undertakes research using a range 1. Undertakes but does not 1. Undertakes no 1. Undertakes no
using a range of resources both of given resources complete some research using research research
provided and self sought 2. Organises and analyses information a range of given resources 2. Does not organise, 2. Does not organise,
2. Organises, analyses and evaluates to fulfil the learning objectives 2. Organises information to analyse or evaluate analyse or evaluate
information to fulfil the learning fulfil the learning objectives information to fulfil information to fulfil
objectives the learning the learning
objectives objectives
3. Is distracted by
others and/or is
involved in activities
123

that are not related to

the class or group

169
 170
Table 2 continued
123

Grade A Grade B Grade C Grade D Grade F

Teamwork The student: The student: The student: The student: The student:
1. Recognises different roles within 1. Recognises different roles within 1. Recognises different roles 1. Does not recognise 1. Does not recognise
the team, sees the significant of the team and fulfils each role when within the team but does not the different roles the different roles
these roles, and fulfils each role required always fulfil each role when within the team and within the team and
when required 2. Contributes to the team’s learning required does not fulfil any does not fulfil any
2. Recognises the importance of, 3. Encourages the quieter, weaker 2. Contributes with some role role
and contributes to, the team’s members of the group difficultly to the team’s 2. Makes no 2. Makes no
learning learning contribution to the contribution to the
3. Supports and encourages the 3. When prompted, will team’s learning team’s learning
quieter, weaker members of the encourage the quieter, weaker 3. Never encourages 3. Never encourages the
group members of the group the quieter, weaker quieter, weaker
members of the members of the group
group 4. Distracts others and
prevents them from
being involved in
group work
Communication The student: The student: The student: The student: The student:
skills 1. Asks relevant questions and gives 1. Asks questions and gives answers 1. Asks questions and gives 1. Never asks 1. Never asks questions
relevant answers which may not always be relevant answers which are generally questions 2. Does not listen to
2. Can verbally synthesis disparate 2. Attempts to verbally synthesis not relevant 2. Does not listen to others
ideas and information disparate ideas and information 2. Attempts to recall ideas and others 3. Does not listen to
3. Listens to others in order to 3. Listens to others in order to information 3. Does not listen to others
understand and critique ideas and understand 3. Listens to others but does not others 4. Reads with difficulty
information 4. Can articulate information always understand 4. Reads with information that is
4. Can articulate information presented in slides although 4. Reads information that is difficulty presented on slides or
presented in slides without occasionally resorts to reading presented on slides information that is does not present at all
resorting to reading presented on slides in Meeting 3

J. L. F. Choy et al.
Is the SPQ a good predictor of academic achievement? 171

References

Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Intelligence, personality and interests: Evidence for over-
lapping traits. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 219–245.
Ackerman, P. L., Bowen, K. R., Beier, M. E., & Kanfer, R. (2001). Determinants of individual differences
and gender differences in knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 797–825.
Astin, A. W. (1970). The methodology of research on college impact, part two. Sociology of Education, 43,
451–458.
Bandalos, D. L., & Finney, S. J. (Eds.). (2001). Item parceling issues in structural equation modeling.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Biggs, J. B. (1973). Study behaviour and performance in objective and essay formats. Australian Journal of
Education, 17, 157–167.
Biggs, J. B. (1976). Dimension of study behaviour: Another look at ATI. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 46, 68–80.
Biggs, J. B. (1987a). Student approaches to learning and studying. Melbourne: Australian Council for
Educational Research.
Biggs, J. B. (1987b). Student approaches in learning and studying. Hawthorn, Victoria: Australian Council
for Educational Research.
Biggs, J. B. (1987c). The Study Process Questionnaire (SPQ): manual. Hawthorn, Victoria: Australian
Council for Educational Research.
Biggs, J. B. (1989). Approaches to the enhancement of tertiary education. Higher Education Research and
Development, 8, 7–25.
Biggs, J. B. (1992). Why and how do Hong Kong students learn? Using the learning and study process
questionnaires. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University.
Biggs, J. B. & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university. 3rd ed. Maidenhead: Open
University Press.
Biggs, J. B., Kember, D., & Leung, Y. P. (2001). The revised two-factor Study Process Questionnaire:
R-SPQ-2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 133–149.
Booth, P., Luckett, P., & Mladenovic, R. (1999). The quality of learning in accounting education: The
impact of approaches to learning on academic performance. Accounting Education, 8(4), 277–300.
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications and pro-
gramming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Choppin, B. H. (1990). Evaluation, assessment, and measurement. In H. J. Walberg & G. D. Haertel (Eds.),
The international encyclopedia of educational evaluation (pp. 7–8). New York: Pergamon.
Fan, X., Thomson, B., & Wang, L. (1999). Effects of sample size, estimation methods, and model speci-
fication on structural equation. Structural Equation Modelling, 6(1), 56–83.
Gijbels, D., de Watering, G. V., Dochy, G., & den Bossche, P. V. (2005). The relationship between students’
approaches to learning and the assessment of learning outcomes. European Journal of Psychology of
Education, XX(4), 327–341.
Gijbels, D., Segers, M., & Struyf, E. (2008). Constructivist learning environments and the (im)possibility to
change students’ perceptions of assessment demands and approaches to learning. Instructional Science,
36(5–6), 431–443.
Graham, J. W., & Hofer, S. M. (2000). Multiple imputation in multivariate research. In T. D. Little,
K. U. Schnabel, & J. Baumert (Eds.), Modeling longitudinal and multilevel data: Practical issues,
applied approaches, and specific examples. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Groves, M. (2005). Problem-based learning and learning approach: Is there a relationship? Advances in
Health Sciences Education, 10, 315–326.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional
criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.
Jones, A., & Jones, D. (1996). Student orientation to independent learning. Higher Education Research and
Development, 15(2), 83–96.
Kember, D. (1996). The intention to both memorise and understand: Another approach to learning? Higher
Education, 31, 341–354.
Kember, D. (2000). Misconceptions about the learning approaches, motivation and study practices of Asian
students. Higher Education, 40, 00–121.
Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel:
Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 151–173.
Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning I. Outcome and process. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4–11.

123
172 J. L. F. Choy et al.

Neilson, H. D., Moos, R. H., & Lee, E. A. (1978). Response bias in follow up studies of college students.
Research in Higher Education, 9, 97–113.
O’Connor, M., & Paunonen, S. (2007). Big Five personality predictors of post-secondary academic per-
formance. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 971–990.
Ramburuth, P., & Mladenovic, R. (2004). Exploring the relationship between students’ orientations to
learning, the structure of students’ learning outcomes and subsequent academic performance.
Accounting Education, 13(4), 507–527.
Ramsden, P. (1981). A study of the relationship between student learning and its academic context.
unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Lancaster.
Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge.
Scouller, K., & Prosser, M. (1994). Students’ experiences in studying for multiple choice question exam-
ination versus assignment essay. Higher Education, 20(1), 5–17.
Snelgrove, s., & Slater, j. (2003). Approaches to learning: Psychometric testing of a study process ques-
tionnaire. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 43(5), 496–505.
Watkins, D. (2001). Correlates of approaches to learning: A cross-cultural meta-analysis. In R. Sternberg &
L. Zhang (Eds.), Perspective on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles (pp. 165–195). New Jersey:
Erlbaum.
Watkins, D., & Hattie, J. (1981). The learning processes of Australian university students: Investigations of
contextual and personalogical factors. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 384–393.
Wilding, J., & Andrews, B. (2006). Life goals, approaches to study and performance in an undergraduate
cohort. The British Psychological Society, 76, 171–182.
Zeegers, P. (1999). Student learning in science: A longitudinal study using the Biggs SPQ. Paper presented
at HERDSA annual international conference, Melbourne.
Zeegers, P. (2002). A revision of the Biggs’ Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ). Higher Education
Research & Development, 21(1), 73–92.

123