Lithuanian undergraduate students' approaches to learning English for Specific Purposes

• Authors: Nijolė Burkšaitienė , Jolita Šliogerienė
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Aim. It has been established by research that the nature of students’ learning is closely related to their approach to learning and to the learning environment in which learning occurs. In higher education environments, students’ approaches to learning have been widely investigated across different fields of study, however, little known research has focused on students’ approaches to learning foreign languages. To contribute to knowledge in this field, the present research aims to establish undergraduate students’ approaches to learning English for Specific purposes (ESP) at a university in Lithuania. Method. The research was conducted with the participation of 111 undergraduate students, majors in 11 different study programmes, who took a mandatory course in ESP. The data were collected from the structured questionnaires; to carry out the research, quantitative methodology was used. Results.  The analysis of students’ engagement in the study activities, their willingness to go beyond the task and their ability to self-regulate their learning revealed that the study participants demonstrated both surface approach and deep approach to learning ESP. Conclusion. The results indicate that to guide the students towards deep approach to learning ESP at the university, their engagement in study activities should be fostered. 

Keywords

EN

approach to learning; deep learning; surface leaning; English for Specific Purposes; higher education

• Publisher: Fundacja Pro Scientia Publica
• Journal: Journal of Education Culture and Society
• Year: 2021
• Volume: 12
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 469-477

Dates

published

2021-06-17

Contributors

author

Nijolė Burkšaitienė

• Department of Translation Studies, Institute for Literary, Cultural and Translation Studies Faculty of Philology, Vilnius University, Lithuania

author

Jolita Šliogerienė

• Department of Foreign Languages, Faculty of Creative Industries Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Lithuania

References

• Beattie IV, V., Collins, B., & McInnes, B. (1997). Deep and surface learning : a simple or simplistic dichotomy? Accounting education, 6 (1), 1-12. DOI: 10.1080//096392897331587.
• Biggs, J. (1999). What the student does: teaching for enhanced learning. Higher education research & development, 18 (1), 57-75.
• Case, J., & Marshall, D. (2004). Between deep and surface: procedural approaches to learning in engineering education contexts. Studies in higher education, 29 (5), 605-615. DOI: 10.1080/0307507042000261571.
• Entwistle, N. (1998). Approaches to learning and forms of understanding. In: B. Dart, & G. Boulton-Lewis (Eds.), Teaching and learning in higher education. From theory to practice. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.
• Filius, R. M., de Kleijn, R. A. M., Uijl, S. G., Prins, F. J., van Rijen H. V. M., Grobbee, D. E. (2018). Strengthening dialogic peer feedback aiming for deep learning in SPOCs. Computers & education, 125 (2018), 86-100.
• Hall, M., Ramsey, A., & Raven, J. (2004). Changing the learning environment to promote deep learning approaches in first-yar accounting students. Accounting education, 13 (4), 489-505. DOI: 10.1080/0963928042000306837.
• Hay, D. B. (2007). Using concept maps to measure deep, surface and non-learning outcomes. Studies in higher education, 32 (1), 39-57. DOI:10.1080/03075070601099432.
• Lindblom-Ylänne, S., Parpala, A., & Postareff, L. (2019). What constitutes the surface approach to learning in the light of new empirical evidence? Studies in higher education, 44 (12), 2183-2195. DOI:10.1080/03075079.2018.1482267.
• McDowell, L., Wakelin, D, Montgomery, C, & King, S. (2011). Does assessment for learning make a difference? The development of a questionnaire to explore the student response. Assessment & evaluation in higher education, 26 (7), 749-765. DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2010.488792.
• Philips, M. E, & Graeff, T. R (2014).Using in-class simulation in the first accounting class; moving from surface to deep learning. Journal of education for business, 89 (5), 241-247. DOI:10.1080/08832323.2013.863751.
• Price, L. (2011). Modelling factors for predicting student learning outcomes in higher education. In: ‘Learning in transition: dimensionality, validity and development’ scientific research network conference, 1-2 Dec. 2011, University of Antwerp, Belgium. Retrieved January 21, 2021 from:
• http://www.ua.ac.be/main.aspx?c=.LEARNINGINTRANSITION&n=92385
• Ramsden, P. (1987). Improving teaching and learning in higher education: the case for a relational perspective. Studies in higher education, 12 (3), 275-286. DOI:10.1080/03075078712331378062.
• Sherer, P., & Shea, T. (2011). Using online video to support student learning and engagement. College teaching, 59 (2), 56-59.
• Smith, T. W., & Colby, S. A. (2007). Teaching for deep learning. The Clearing house: a journal of educational strategies, issues and ideas, 80 (5), 205-210. DOI:10.3200/TCHS.80.5.205-210.
• Tal, T., & Tsaushu, M. (2018). Student-centered introductory biology course: evidence for deep learning. Journal of biological education, 52 (4), 376-390. DOI:10.1080/00219266.2017.1385508.
• Trigwell, K., Ellis, R. A., & Han, F. (2012). Relations between students’ approaches to learning, experienced emotions and outcomes of learning. Studies in higher education, 37 (7), 811-824.
• Tuononen, T., Parpala, A., & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (2020). Complex interrelations between academic competences and students’ approaches to learning – mixed-methods study. Journal of further and higher education, 44 (8), 1080-1097. DOI: 10.1080/0309877X.2019.1648776.
• Turner, M., & Baskerville, R. (2013). The Experience of deep learning by accounting students. Accounting education: an international journal, 22 (6), 582-604. DOI:10.1080/09639284.2013.847323.

Identifiers

DOI

10.15503/jecs2021.1.469.477