Changes to students' learning processes following instruction on the topic.

Previous research indicates that students' learning styles, as assessed by the Inventory of Learning Processes (ILP; Schmeck, Ribich, & Ramanaiah, 1977), change during college. Additionally, prior research indicates that teaching students about their learning styles enables them to change those learning styles. The current study investigated the effect of teaching students about effective learning processes in general to determine if this would alter their learning processes. Twenty-six Cognitive Psychology students completed the ILP 1 week before and 1 week following instruction on the topic of effective learning processes. The students' scores on the Deep Processing and Elaborative Processing subscales significantly increased from before instruction to alter instruction, which is substantial given the significant relations between scores on these subscales and academic achievement.

**********

Schmeck, Ribich, and Ramanaiah (1977) developed the Inventory of Learning Processes (ILP) to assess the manners in which students process information. The ILP measures students' learning style by examining the behaviors they employ to process the material, such as critically evaluating it, rewording class information and connecting it to their lives, focusing on facts and details, or using commonly prescribed study methods. The ILP focuses on how students process information in academic settings via such cognitive concepts as organization, elaborative processing, and depth- of-processing, in addition to encoding, storage, and retrieval strategies. The ILP is divided into four subscales: Deep Processing, Elaborative Processing, Fact Retention, and Methodical Study. The Deep Processing subscale assesses the extent to which students focus on higher-level concepts and critical evaluation of the information. The Elaborative Processing subscale measures a student's inclination to personally encode the information, through such methods as self-involvement. The Fact Retention subscale examines a student's proclivity to memorize facts and details. Finally, the Methodical Study subscale assesses how often a student studies and the student's usage of techniques in "how-to" study guides (i.e., those techniques frequently believed to lead to earning high grades) (cf., Schmeck et al., 1977).

The subscales of the ILP have been shown to relate to academic achievement, such as correlations with GPA, correlations with course grades, correlations with entrance examination scores, differences between students successful in a course and those not, differences between those students with higher GPAs and those with lower GPAs, and differences between honors students and non-honors students (Albaili, 1993, 1994; Battling, 1988; Carnicom & Clump, 2005; Gadzella, 1995; Gadzella & Baloglu, 2003; Gadzella, Ginther, & Bryant, 1997; Gadzella, Ginther, & Williamson, 1986; Gadzella, Ginther, & Williamson, 1987; Gadzella, Stephens, & Baloglu, 2002; Kozminksy & Kaufman, 1992; Lockhart & Schmeck, 1983, Miller, Alway, & McKinley, 1987; Miller, Finley, & McKinley, 1990; Schmeck & Grove, 1979; Watkins, Hattie, & Astilla, 1983; Westman, 1993).

Two very important studies investigated changes in students' scores on the ILP during their progression through college. Bartling (1988) used a longitudinal design to examine the changes in students' learning styles as measured by the ILP. Bartling found that students in general significantly increased their utilization of Deep Processing and significantly decreased their application of Methodical Study as they progressed through college. Jakoubek and Swenson (1993) used a full cross-sectional design to compare the learning styles of college students. They found significantly different scores between the student cohorts on the Deep Processing, Methodical Study, and Elaborative Processing subscales. In a similar line, but not using the ILP, Busato, Prins, Elshout, and Hamaker (1998) found longitudinal changes in learning styles for students with a significant increase on the meaning directed learning style.

Given the connection between the subscales of the ILP, especially the significant correlations between the Deep Processing, Elaborative Processing, and Fact Retention subscales (Bartling, 1988; Gadzella et al., 1987; Schmeck & Grove, 1979), and academic achievement, and the significant increase of Deep Processing by students as they progress through college (Bartling, 1988), the effect of providing students with instruction on their learning processes is warranted. The current study investigated the effect of teaching students about effective learning processes and the learning processes measured by the ILP. Students completed the ILP before instruction on the topic and following instruction on the topic to assess self-reported changes in their learning processes as a result of instruction. Significant changes in their processes would indicate that including such a discussion in courses, especially in courses that aim at helping students transition to college, would be an effective means of helping them incorporate successful learning processes.

Method

Participants

The current study was conducted using students from a Cognitive Psychology course at an institution located in the eastern portion of the United States. The participants in this course included 35 students (32 females and 3 males). The students ranged in age from 20-years-old to 40-years-old (M = 23.57-years-old, SD = 5.61). Nineteen of the students reported being in their junior year of school, 12 reported being in their senior year, and 4 reported being in their sophomore year of school.

Twenty-six of the students completed the ILP at both the beginning and at the end of the study. Five of the students only provided data at the beginning of the study, and four students only provided data at the end of the study. The ILP scores for these 9 students did not significantly differ from the 26 students who provided data at beginning and end of the study, all t's < 1.00, and p's were ns.

Materials

Schmeck et al. (1977) developed the ILP to assess the learning styles of students from an information processing perspective. Using true or false, students indicate if each of 62 statements represents the way they generally study and learn. The Deep Processing subscale is composed of 18 items, such as, "I find it difficult to handle questions requiring comparison of different concepts" (Schmeck et al., 1977, p. 416). The Elaborative Processing subscale (14 items) contains items such as, "I learn new words or ideas by visualizing a situation in which they occur" (Schmeck et al., 1977, p. 417). The third subscale, Fact Retention, has 7 items. An example from the Fact Retention subscale is, "I am good at learning formulas, names, and dates" (Schmeck et al., 1977, p. 417). And finally, the statement "For the exam, I prepare a set of notes integrating the information from all sources in the course" (Schmeck et al., 1977, p. 416) is an example of a question from the Methodical Study subscale (23 items).

The ILP's subscales have strong internal consistencies (.82 for Deep Processing, .67 for Elaborative Processing, .58 for Fact Retention, and .74 for Methodical Study) and test-retest reliabilities (.88 for Deep Processing, .80 for Elaborative Processing, .79 for Fact Retention, and .83 for Methodical Study; Schmeck et al., 1977). In addition, even after 25 years, the ILP's subscales continue to have significant and strong test-retest reliabilities (Gadzella, 2003).

Procedure

The students completed the ILP at home 1 week before and 1 week following instruction on and discussion of how students process information, especially effectively, while learning it.

Results

The students' scores on the ILP before being taught about effective learning processes were compared to their scores after classroom instruction on the topic (see Table 1 for means and standard deviations). The students' scores significantly increased on the Deep Processing, t (25) = -3.00, p < .01, and Elaborative Processing, t (25) = -3.22, p < .01, subscales from before instruction to after instruction. The students' scores also increased on the Methodical Study subscale, but it was not a significant increase, t (25) = -1.52, ns. And finally, the students' scores on the Fact Retention subscale of the ILP decreased from before classroom instruction to following it, but this was not a significant decrease, t (25) = .76, ns.

Discussion

The students' scores on the ILP following instruction on effective learning processes indicated that they were now significantly incorporating more of the strategies associated with Deep Processing and Elaborative Processing following the classroom instruction on the topic. Adding processes measured by the Deep Processing and Elaborative Processing subscales is even more important given that these two subscales have shown significant relations with academic achievement (Albaili, 1993, 1994; Bartling, 1988; Gadzella et al., 1986; Gadzella et al., 1987; Miller et al., 1987; Miller et al., 1990; Schmeck & Grove, 1979; Watkins et al., 1983); and more specifically, grades in classrooms (Gadzella, 1995; Gadzella & Baloglu, 2003; Gadzella et al., 1986; Gadzella et al., 1997; Gadzella et al., 2002; Kozminksy & Kaufman, 1992; Lockhart & Schmeck, 1983; Westman, 1993), critical thinking (Gadzella & Masten, 1998; Gadzella et al., 1997; Schmeck & Ribich, 1978), and reading comprehension (Schmeck & Phillips, 1982). Important changes in student learning processes as students progress through college have been established (Bartling, 1988; Jakoubek & Swenson, 1993), but the current study's findings indicate that this can be even more immediate by teaching the students about effective learning processes.

Previous research (Dunn, Deckinger, Withers, & Katzenstein, 1990; Flippo & Terrell, 1984; Fourier, 1983; Nelson et al., 1993; Schatteman, Carette, Couder, & Eisendrath, 1997; Wratcher, 1991) consistently illustrates that teaching students about their specific learning styles and study methods can help them use more effective styles, get better grades in courses, and use better study skills. However, this study demonstrated that just teaching students about effective learning processes can influence their utilization of those effective processes. Assessing a student's learning processes and then providing the student with specific feedback is very important to help the student succeed in class, but it may not be feasible in all classes due to time constraints. Schmeck (personal communication, June 23, 2000) stated that individuals could accurately assess their learning processes when only given descriptions of the learning processes measured by the ILP, which in conjunction with the current results (i.e., a thorough discussion of the topic in general will allow students to alter their processes), means that when confronted with an inadequate amount of time, an instructor could provide students with descriptions of effective learning processes and methods and the students can change their learning processes. Instructors of courses geared toward helping students succeed in college and/or transition to collegiate courses would benefit from including a discussion of effective learning processes in the class if time does not permit actual evaluation and discussion of each student's processes.

One possible concern is that the results of this study occurred because students answered the ILP questions in a socially desirable manner the second time. Two aspects of the results appear to contradict this. First, the responses of students who completed the ILP twice were not significantly different from the individuals who completed the ILP one time; this is especially important given that the students' second responses did not vary from those who only responded at the end of the study. Second, the students' responses on the Methodical Study and Fact Retention subscales did not significantly change. If the students were only responding based on social desirability, it would be expected that a significant decrease on the Methodical subscale would occur.

Future research should investigate if the changes in the students' learn ing processes are permanent. In addition, future research could investigate the effect of teaching individual students about their learning processes on course grades and academic achievement.

References

Albaili, M. A. (1993). Psychometric properties of the Inventory of Learning Processes: Evidence from United Arab Emirates college students. Psychological Reports, 72, 1331-1336.

Albaili, M. A. (1994). Learning processes and academic achievement of United Arab Emirates college students. Psychological Reports, 74, 739-746.

Bartling, C. A. (1988). Longitudinal changes in the study habits of successful college students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48, 527-535.

Busato. V. V., Prins, E J., Elshout, J. J., & Hamaker, C. (1998). Learning styles: A cross-sectional and longitudinal study in higher education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 427-441.

Carnicom, S., & Clump, M. (2005). Assessing learning style differences between honors and non-honors students. Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council.

Dunn R., Deckinger, E. L., Withers, P., & Katzenstein, H. (1990). Should college students be taught how to do homework? The effects of studying marketing through individual perceptual strengths. Illinois School Research and Development, 26, 96-113.

Flippo, R. F., & Terrell, W. R. (1984). Personalized instruction: An exploration of its effects on developmental reading students' attitudes and self-confidence. Reading World, 23, 315-324.

Fourier, M. J. (1983). Academic achievement of students who receive disclosure of cognitive map information. Journal of Experimental Education, 51, 122-130.

Gadzella, B. M. (1995). Differences in processing information among psychology course grade groups. Psychological Reports. 77, 1312-1314.

Gadzella. B. M. (2003). Reliability of the Inventory of Learning Processes. Psychological Reports, 92, 1029-1030.

Gadzella, B. M., & Baloglu, M. (2003). High and low achieving education students on processing, retaining, and retrieval of information. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 30, 99-103.

Gadzella, B. M., & Masten, W. G. (1998). Relation between measures of critical thinking and learning styles. Psychological Reports, 83, 1248-1250.

Gadzella, B. M., Ginther, D. W., & Bryant, G. W. (1997). Prediction of performance in an academic course by scores on measures of learning styles and critical thinking. Psychological Reports, 81, 595-602.

Gadzella, B. M., Ginther. D. W., & Williamson, J. D. (1986). Differences in learning processes and academic achievement. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 62, 151-156.

Gadzella, B. M., Ginther, D. W., & Williamson, J. D. (I 987). Study skills, learning processes. and academic achievement. Psychological Reports, 61, 167-172.

Gadzella, B. M., Stephens, R., & Baloglu, M. (2002). Prediction of educational psychology course grades by age and learning style. College Student Journal, 36, 62-68.

Jakoubek, J., & Swenson, R. R. (1993). Differences in use of learning strategies and relation to grades among undergraduates. Psychological Reports, 73, 787-793.

Kozminsky, E., & Kaufman, G. (1992). Academic achievement and individual differences in the learning processes of Israeli high-school students. Learning and Individual Differences, 4, 335-345.

Lockhart, D., & Schmeck, R. R. (1983). Learning styles and classroom evaluation methods: Different strokes for different folks. College Student Journal, 17, 94-100.

Miller, D., Alway, M.. & McKinley, D. (1987). Effects of learning styles and strategies on academic success. Journal of College Student Personnel, 28, 399-404.

Miller, D., Finley, J., & McKinley, D. (1990). Learning approaches and motives: Male and female differences and implications for learning assistance programs. Journal of College Student Development, 31, 147-154.

Nelson, B., Dunn, R., Griggs. S. A., Primavera, L., Fitzpatrick, M., Bacilious, Z., & Miller, R. (1993). Effects of learning style intervention on college students' retention and achievement. Journal of College Student Development, 34, 364-369.

Schatteman, A.. Carette E., Couder, J., & Eisendrath. H. (1997). Understanding the effects of a process-oriented instruction in the first year of a university by investigating learning style characteristics. Educational Psychology, 17, 111-125.

Schmeck. R. R., & Grove, E. (1979). Academic achievement and individual differences in learning processes. Applied Psychological Measurement, 3, 43-49.

Schmeck, R. R., & Phillips, J. (1982). Levels of processing as a dimension of difference between individuals. Human Learning, 1, 95-103.

Schmeck, R. R., & Ribich, E D. (1978). Construct validation of the Inventory of Learning Processes. Applied Psychological Measurement, 2, 551-562.

Schmeck, R. R., Ribich, F., & Ramanaiah, N. (1977). Development of a self-report inventory for assessing individual differences in learning processes. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 413-431.

Watkins. D., Hattie. J., & Astilla, E. (1983). The validity of the four subscales of the Inventory of Learning Processes for a sample of Filipino freshman college students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 43, 531-536.

Westman, A. S. (1993). Learning styles are content specific and probably influenced by content areas studied. Psychological Reports, 73, 512-514.

Wratcher, M. A. (1991). Helping freshmen to maximize their learning potential. Journal of College Student Development, 32, 380-381.

Michael A. Clump, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Psychology, Marymount University.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr. Michael A. Clump, Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology, Marymount University, 2807 N. Glebe Rd., Arlington, VA 22207, Email: [e-mail]

Table 1

Means and Standard Deviations for the Students Before and After
Being Taught about Effective Learning Processes

                           Before          After

Subscale                 M       SD     M          SD

Deep Processing          12.15   4.27   13.46 **   3.57   -3.00
Elaborative Processing   10.08   2.50   11.38 **   1.98   -3.22
Fact Retention            5.31   1.44    5.12      1.48     .76
Methodical Study         11.38   4.20   12.12      4.26   -1.52