Learning Approach, Reflective
Thinking and Academic
Performance of Real Estate
Students Abdul - Rasheed Amidu
School of Property,
Construction & Planning
Birmingham city University
Learning approaches…
Most desirable in
higher education
• Surface
• Deep
• Strategic
Entwistle &
Richardson (1983)
Marton &
Saljo (1976)
Stages of reflective thinking…
Level 1:
Habitual
understanding
Level 2:
Understanding
Level 3:
Reflection
Level 4:
Critical reflection
Kember et al (2000)
• Performing automatic activity with
little thought
• Learning
without
relating
contents to other situations
the
• Critique of any beliefs grounded in
our consciousness
• Higher level of reflection which
involves validating beliefs
Research Questions…

What learning approach and stages of reflective
thinking do real estate students adopt in their
academic learning

What effects do the learning approach and
reflective thinking practice have on academic
performance of real estate students

How does real estate student learning approach
influence their reflective practice in academic
learning
Research methods…


Participants – 40 Real Estate students in
a UK University
Variables & measurement instrument
Learning approach (R-SPQ-2F developed
by Biggs et al. 2001)
 Reflective thinking practice (RTQ developed
by Kember et al. 2000)
 Academic performance – overall mark in
property valuation module


Data analysis – correlation matrix
Results…
Mean
SD
Alpha
Kember et al
(2000)
Biggs et al
(20001)
Alpha
Alpha
RTQ
Habitual action
11.58
3.27
0.52
0.62
Understanding
16.20
3.42
0.76
0.76
Reflection
15.00
2.80
0.63
0.63
Critical reflection
13.33
3.55
0.66
0.68
Deep approach
30.55
5.81
0.75
0.73
Deep motive
15.18
3.30
0.55
0.62
Deep strategy
16.13
3.19
0.63
0.63
Surface approach
24.75
6.81
0.81
0.64
Surface motive
10.88
3.84
0.73
0.72
Surface strategy
13.88
3.80
0.70
0.57
SPQ
Results…
HA
U
R
CR
DA
SA
HA
1.000
U
-0.148
1.000
R
0.148
0.626**
1.000
CR
0.166
0.260***
0.502**
1.000
DA
-0.071
0.171
0.545**
0.406**
1.000
SA
0.062
-0.515**
-0.624**
-0.256***
-0.419**
1.000
Per
-0.387*
0.037
-0.024
-0.090
0.013
-0.271***
* p ‹ 0.05 level, ** p ‹ 0.01 level, *** p ‹ 0.1 level
Per
1.000
Results cont.…
Expected results

Students that adopted surface approach
and habitual action to learning tend to
have lower academic performance

Reflection and critical reflection are
determined by deep approach to learning
while
Results cont.…
Surprise result

Students who are critical and reflective are
not necessarily rewarded in terms of
marks
Tentative conclusions

The use of RTQ in real estate subject
domain is questionable

Possible influence of “noise” factors not
been accounted in this study


i.e. students can do well in some modules but
not in others
Appropriateness of assessment criteria
Thanks for listening!
Your Questions and
Reflections?
Abdul - Rasheed Amidu
[email protected]