Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students (ASSIST) (incorporating the Revised Approaches to Studying Inventory - RASI)

Full text

Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students (ASSIST)
(incorporating the Revised Approaches to Studying Inventory - RASI)
Report of the development and use of the inventories (updated March,
2013)
Noel Entwistle, Velda McCune (University of Edinburgh) and Hilary Tait (Napier University)
Contents page
• Description of ASSIST and RASI
1
• Scoring key for full inventory 2
• Cronbach alpha values for scales and sub-scales from different countries 4
• Findings from studies using ASSIST or RASI 5
• References 15
• The full and the shorter versions of the inventories 17
• Scoring key for the shorter inventory 21
Please note that either version of each inventory can be used freely with simply an acknowledgement, but the
authors cannot enter into correspondence about the methods of analysis or the interpretation of findings.
Description of ASSIST and RASI
This inventory has its origins in the Approaches to Studying Inventory (ASI) which was developed in the
University of Lancaster in the late 1970s (Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983) and was designed to indicate the
relative strengths of students’ approaches in three main dimensions – deep, surface and strategic.
ASSIS T was developed by the Centre for Research on Learning and Instruction in the University of
Edinburgh in 1997. (The Centre’s activities were subsequently merged within the School of Education.)
Further details of the conceptual basis of this and similar inventories can be found in Biggs (1993),
Richardson (2000), Entwistle & McCune (2004) and Entwistle (2009).
The first section of ASSIST (A) contains items relating to conceptions of learning, but this section has not
been fully developed. The second (B) is a revised of the ASI (Approaches to Studying Inventory) which
contains 52 items, although a shortened version of 18 items has also been developed and is reported
later. This section has often been used on its own and is generally referred to as the Revised ASI or RASI
(Richardson, 2005) and produces scores on Deep, Surface and Strategic Approaches: inter-correlations
between the ASI scores and the RASI scores are shown below. The final section (C) invites students to
indicate their preferences for different kinds of teaching. Details of the reliability of the approaches
section and some findings from previous research are provided below.
A. What is learning? – Conceptions of learning
This first section is based on the conceptions of learning described initially by Säljö (see Marton & Säljö,
1997) but was not fully developed. The categories can be seen as a hierarchy, although not all the steps
or categories are generally agreed. The first four, can be combined to indicate a conception of learning as
reproducing knowledge, while the remaining four cover a view of learning as ‘transforming’ the taught
material, seeing learning as involving personal understanding and developing as a person.
Learning as reproducing knowledge
g. Getting on with the things you've got to do.
c. Building up knowledge by acquiring facts and information.
a. Making sure you remember things well.
1

e Being able to use the information you've acquired.
Learning as transforming taught material
f. Understanding new material for yourself.
h. Seeing things in a different and more meaningful way.
d. Using all your experiences in life.
b. Developing as a person.
i. Being able to relate to people better. [a rather different dimension – treat as a separate variable]
2

B. Approaches to studying
The idea of approaches to studying derive from Marton & Saljo's (1976, 1997) ideas on approaches to
learning, combined with Entwistle & Ramsden's (1983; also Ramsden & Entwistle, 1979) work on
approaches to studying, together with the work of Biggs (1979, 1987). It identifies the tendencies of
students to adopt deep, surface and strategic approaches to learning and studying. The inventory uses a
Likert technique for measuring attitudes which involves asking students to rate the extent of their
agreement on a five-point scale with a series of related items that cover the aspects of a specific
construct. Summing these responses across items produces a scale score for each construct. In this
inventory, each main construct (deep, surface and strategic) has been found to have conceptually
distinct aspects (sub-scales), which are still related to the main approach.
This development from the ASI included adding sub-scales intended to extend the description of
studying and reactions to teaching. For example, ‘monitoring effectiveness’ was added to include an
aspect of metacognition and self-regulation, which proved to be related both to ‘deep’ and ‘strategic’
approaches. The surface approach now puts more emphasis on ineffective studying by including ‘lack of
purpose’ sub-scale, while ‘unrelated memorising’ was also included. The strategic’ dimension was
strengthened by separating adding ‘time management’ and making a specific sub-scale of items
descrbing ‘alertness to assessment’, although that subsequently was found to form a separate aspect. The
original version of the ASI explicitly included Pask’s two styles of learning. In ASSIST , however, these
now come within the deep approach, which is taken to require both ways of thinking - relating ideas
(holist) and using evidence (serialist) – which in alternation produce a versatile style of learning. The factor
analyses, shown later, confirm that these two processes link closely with both the intention to seek
meaning and interest in ideas (associated with intrinsic motivation).
The first two or three sub-scales in each approach are most consistently related to each other, and
can be combined for most subject areas. Subsequent sub-scales are more likely to vary in their
relationships across different samples. Relationships thus need to be checked in the particular sample
used for the study. Descriptions of the development and use of this particular version of the inventory
will be found in Tait & Entwistle (1996), Tait, Entwistle (1998, 2001), Entwistle & McCune (1998),
Entwistle, Tait & McCune (2000) and Long (2000, 2003).
Scoring procedure for RASI
The longer version provides three main scores, with subsidiary sub-scores as shown below. The alpha
coefficients indicating the internal consistency of the items in measuring the same construct are also
shown (from Long, 2000 based on 4138 undergraduate students). The test-retest reliabilities are less
easier to obtain, as scores on the inventory are affected by students experiences in the courses they are
taking, and so cannot be assumed to be stable. Nevertheless, in recent research, test-retest coefficients
for completion of items before and after a module (10-15 weeks interval) were found to be: deep (0.59),
strategic (0.62), surface (0. 51): details can be found at www.etl.tla.ed.ac.uk/p u blications.html
Cronbach alpha coefficients
Deep 0.82 Surface 0.65
Seeking meaning 0.78 Lack of purpose 0.62
Relating ideas 0.76 Unrelated memorising 0.46
Use of evidence 0.76 Fear of failure 0.62
Interest in ideas (related motivational aspect) 0.81 (related motivational aspect)
Monitoring effectiveness (also loads on strategic) 0.80 Syllabus-boundness 0.61
(not consistently surface)
Strategic 0.83
Organised studying 0.77
Time management 0.77
Achieving (related motivational aspect) 0.76
Alertness to assessment demands 0.85
(included in earlier research, but later kept separate as distinct factor or omitted for first-year students)
Students respond to items on a 1 - 5 scale (5 high). Sub-scale scores are formed by adding together the
responses on the items in that sub-scale. Scoring is usually carried out by computer, using a program
3

such as SPSS. Each item is set as a variable (e.g. D04 = Deep item 4), and then a sub- scale total is
produced by creating a new variable by summing the items. For example, Seeking Meaning (SM) = D04
+ D17 +D30 + D43, while for many purposes it is sufficient to create just three scales by adding the
appropriate sub- scale scores. The original scoring scheme was DA = SM + RI + UE + II. SA = LP + UM
+ SB + FF ST = OS + TM + AC + AA, but the findings reported later suggest the need to check the item
factor structure to produce the best definition for the population.
4

Items shown within the sub-scales to which they belong
Deep approach to learning
Seeking meaning
4. I usually set out to understand for myself the meaning of what we have to learn.
17. When I'm reading an article or book, I try to find out for myself exactly what the author means.
30. When I am reading I stop from time to time to reflect on what I am trying to learn from it.
43. Before tackling a problem or assignment, I first try to work out what lies behind it.
Relating ideas
11. I try to relate ideas I come across to those in other topics or other courses whenever possible.
21. When I’m working on a new topic, I try to see in my own mind how all the ideas fit together.
33 Ideas in course books or articles often set me off on long chains of thought of my own.
46. I like to play around with ideas of my own even if they don't get me very far.
Use of evidence
9 I look at the evidence carefully and try to reach my own conclusion about what I’m studying.
23. Often I find myself questioning things I hear in lectures or read in books.
36. When I read, I examine the details carefully to see how they fit in with what’s being said.
49. It’s important for me to be able to follow the argument, or to see the reason behind things.
Interest in ideas (Motivational aspect)
13. Regularly I find myself thinking about ideas from lectures when I’m doing other things.
26. I find that studying academic topics can be quite exciting at times.
39. Some of the ideas I come across on the course I find really gripping.
52. I sometimes get 'hooked' on academic topics and feel I would like to keep on studying them.
Monitoring effectiveness (Originally included in strategic, but now seen as more closely related to deep)
7. I go over the work I've done carefully to check the reasoning and that it makes sense.
20 I think about what I want to get out of this course to keep my studying well focused.
34. Before starting work on an assignment or exam question, I think first how best to tackle it.
47. When I have finished a piece of work, I check it through to see if it really meets the requirements.
Strategic approach to studying
Organised studying
1. I manage to find conditions for studying which allow me to get on with my work easily.
14. I think I'm quite systematic and organised when it comes to revising for exams.
27. I'm good at following up some of the reading suggested by lecturers or tutors.
40. I usually plan out my week's work in advance, either on paper or in my head.
Time management
5. I organise my study time carefully to make the best use of it.
18. I’m pretty good at getting down to work whenever I need to.
31. I work steadily through the term or semester, rather than leave it all until the last minute.
44. I generally make good use of my time during the day.
Achieving (Motivational aspect)
10. It's important to me to feel that I'm doing as well as I really can on the courses here.
24. I feel that I'm getting on well, and this helps me put more effort into the work.
37. I put a lot of effort into studying because I'm determined to do well.
50. I don't find it at all difficult to motivate myself.
Alertness to assessment demands (Loads with strategic in some studies, but now seen as a distinct aspect)
2. When working on an assignment, I’m keeping in mind how best to impress the marker.
15. I look carefully at tutors' comments on course work to see how to get higher marks next time.
28. I keep in mind who is going to mark an assignment and what they're likely to be looking for.
41. I keep an eye open for what lecturers seem to think is important and concentrate on that.
5

Approaches to Studying Portugal
(North)
Teixeira et
al., 2012.
N= 386
Portugal
(South)
Valadas et al.
(2010)
N= 566
Norway
Diseth (2001)
N=573
Ireland
Byrne et al.,
(2004)
N= 437
USA
Byrne et al.
(2004)
N= 298
Ireland
Ballantine et al. (2008)
N= 286
Time 0 Time 1
Deep Approach
0.78 0.81 0.81 0.84 0.82 0.81 0.85
Seeking meaning 0.51 0.51 0.49 0.63 0.55 0.66 0.67
Relating ideas 0.47 0.54 0.62 0.59 0.59 0.55 0.59
Use of evidence 0.59 0.59 0.49 0.59 0.49 0.63 0.64
Interest in ideas 0.59 0.56 0.64 0,69 0.67 0.54 0.70
Strategic Approach 0.81 0.83 0.81 0.87 0.87 0.86 0.88
Organised studying 0.55 0.51 0.59 0.63 0.55 0.54 0.50
Time management 0.63 0.65 0.72 0.74 0.77 0.76 0.76
Alertness to assessment 0.47 0.40 0.41 0.63 0.56 0.67 0.70
Achieving 0.58 0.67 0.66 0.68 0.63 0.65 0.67
Monitoring effectiveness 0.55 0.58 0.51 0.61 0.61 0.52 0.63
Surface Approach 0.66 0.79 0.70 0.83 0.80 0.80 0.81
Lack of purpose 0.59 0.54 0.68 0.75 0.68 0.73 0.77
Unrelated memorising 0.48 0.73 0.57 0.59 0.57 0.53 0.59
Syllabus-boundness 0.47 0.62 0.57 0.64 0.55 0.61 0.57
Fear of failure 0.57 0.63 0.57 0.74 0.72 0.77 0.77
Cronbach alpha coefficients for ASSIST scales and sub-scales reported in studies in different countries
(Details supplied by Cláudia Teixeira (mclaudia@iscap.ipp.pt). For further details see Teixeira, C., Gomes, D. and Borges, J. (2013).
6

Surface Approach
This dimension has also been called ‘surface apathetic’ or ‘instrumental’ in some publications
Lack of purpose (Sometimes separates out as a distinct aspect)
3. Often I find myself wondering whether the work I am doing here is really worthwhile.
16. There’s not much of the work here that I find interesting or relevant.
29. When I look back, I sometimes wonder why I ever decided to come here.
42. I’m not really interested in this course, but I have to take it for other reasons.
Unrelated memorising
6. I find I have to concentrate on just memorising a good deal of what I have to learn.
19. Much of what I’m studying makes little sense: it's like unrelated bits and pieces.
32. I'm not really sure what's important in lectures, so I try to get down all I can.
45. I often have trouble in making sense of the things I have to remember.
Fear of failure (Motivational aspect)
8. Often I feel I'm drowning in the sheer amount of material we're having to cope with.
22. I often worry about whether I'll ever be able to cope with the work properly.
35. I often seem to panic if I get behind with my work.
48. Often I lie awake worrying about work I think I won't be able to do.
Syllabus-boundness (Does not contribute to the overall score effectively in all subject areas)
12. I tend to read very little beyond what is actually required to pass.
25. I concentrate on learning just those bits of information I have to know to pass.
38. I gear my studying closely to just what seems to be required for assignments and exams.
51. I like to be told precisely what to do in essays or other assignments.
C. Preferences for different types of course and teaching Scored as the sum of the four items.
Supporting understanding (related to a deep approach)
b. - lecturers who encourage us to think for ourselves and show us how they themselves think.
c. - exams which allow me to show that I've thought about the course material for myself.
f. - courses where we're encouraged to read around the subject a lot for ourselves.
g. - books which challenge you and provide explanations which go beyond the lectures.
Transmitting information (related to a surface approach)
a. - lecturers who tell us exactly what to put down in our notes.
d. - exams or tests which need only the material provided in our lecture notes.
e. - courses in which it's made very clear just which books we have to read.
h. - books which give you definite facts and information which can easily be learned.
Findings from a selection of studies using ASSIST or RASI
A substantial number of studies have now been carried out using RASI with a much smaller number
using the full inventory. Here we indicate the type of findings that have emerged so far, starting with
the relationships between the scales in the ASI and in RASI
Relationships between the scales contained in the original ASI and in RASI
It was important to be sure of the relationship between the original ASI inventory and RASI within
ASSIST. To avoid overload on students, the inventories were administered with an interval of some 13
weeks, which is much longer than is usual in comparing inventories. The sample was made up of the 96
first year psychology students who completed the inventories on both occasions.
7

Table 1 Correlation matrix between sub-scales of the ASI and the RASI within ASSIST (unpublished analysis)
ASSIST →
ASI
↓
seeking
meaning
relating
ideas
use of
evidence
interest in
ideas
unrelated
memorising
syllabus
boundness
fear of
failure
lack of
purpose
organised
studying
time-
manage
ment
achiev
ing
monitoring
effective
ness
alertness
to assess
ment
deep .57 .49 .52 .36 -.20 -.25 .00 -.25 .36 .29 .40 .40 .23
relating ideas .51 .45 .46 .26 -.09 -.16 .09 -.13 .31 .18 .23 .40 .31
use of
evidence
.46 .50 .51 .45 -.31 -.37 -.03 -.20 .23 .09 .25 .28 .29
intrinsic
motivation
.42 .46 .43 .55 -.51 -.35 -.26 -.49 .22 .07 .19 .19 .03
surface
approach
-.21 -.38 -.27 -.31 .59 .40 .48 .33 -.09 -.05 -.11 .01 .08
syllabus
boundness
-.36 -.42 -.34 -.33 .47 .56 .36 .30 -.20 -.14 -.17 -.09 .03
fear of failure -.17 -.36 -.25 -.27 .51 .25 .66 .27 -.18 -.12 -.25 -.06 .02
negative
attitudes
-.36 -.38 -.43 -.32 .45 .14 .27 .59 -.21 -.14 -.29 -.32 -.17
disorganised
methods
-.28 -.20 -.27 -.17 .41 .34 .26 .34 -.56 -.58 -.45 -.31 -.17
strategic
approach
.55 .31 .45 .18 -.18 -.17 .05 -.14 .32 .23 .41 .38 .32
achievement
motivation
.08 .27 .16 .16 -.10 -.06 -.07 -.13 .09 .01 .22 .10 .19
comprehension
learning
.38 .61 .40 .40 -.19 -.30 -.12 -.24 .05 -.05 .15 .03 -.04
globetrotting -.15 .04 -.07 -.06 .33 .08 .15 .26 -.29 -.23 -.13 -.33 -.05
operation
learning
-.02 -.25 -.12 -.13 .38 .35 .35 .09 .09 .13 .02 .14 .13
improvidence -.23 -.41 -.39 -.23 .62 .40 .57 .27 -.09 -.01 -.18 -.02 .05
extrinsic
motivation
-.18 -.23 -.12 -.24 .29 .34 .21 .11 .03 .21 .10 .04 .26
Note: Figures in bold red indicate correlations between equivalent sub-scales of the two instruments, while those in bold are other correlations above /.4/
8

The value of the correlations reported in Table 1 have to be interpreted in the light several
considerations. There was a long interval between completing the two inventories and students do
change their approaches somewhat over time. The conceptual bases of the sub-scales of the two
inventories also differed to some extent due to changes in definition, although there is a recognisable
correspondence between the sub-scales which were intended to be similar.
Factor structure of ASSIST
Rather few studies have looked at the factor structure of all three sections of ASSIST. Table 2 reports the
results of a maximum likelihood factor analysis of 817 first-year university students drawn from ten
contrasting departments in six British universities, omitting the ‘alertness to assessment’ scale which
cannot be used with first-year students early on in their course.
Table 2 Factor pattern matrix for conceptions, approaches, and preferences for teaching
(N = 817, 54.5 % variance extracted) Factor I II III
(alpha)
Deep Strategic Surface
Conceptions of learning
Learning as reproducing (.20) (.13)
Learning as transforming .41
Approaches to Studying
Deep approach (0.84)
Seeking meaning .72 (0.57)
Relating ideas .79 (0.59)
Use of evidence .77 (0.53)
Interest in ideas .65 (0.76)
Monitoring effectiveness .45 .43 (0.62)
Strategic approach (0.80)
Organised studying .76 (0.54)
Time management .87 (0.68)
Achieving .73 (0.76)
Alertness to assessment (excluded)
Surface approach (0.87)
Lack of purpose .42 (0.76)
Unrelated memorising .77 (0.57)
Syllabus boundness .42 (0.55)
Fear of failure .73 (0.69)
Preferences for teaching which
Encourages understanding .61 (0.62)
Transmits information .35 (0.69)
Correlations between factors * I II III
Factor I (Deep) •
Factor II (Surface) - 0.20 •
Factor III (Strategic) 0.35 - 0. 22 •
9

Note: Rotated maximum likelihood analysis with delta set at zero. Loadings less than 0.3 mostly omitted.
10

Sub-scale factor structure of the RASI Approaches to Studying scales within ASSIST
The most thorough investigation so far undertaken using ASSIST within a conventional university
across a range of different subject areas was carried out by Long (2000, 2003), and findings from the first
of these reports are reported here. He obtained samples from four levels (equivalent to first to fourth
year) and eight subject areas with a total sample of 4138 students. Long used four different methods of
extracting factors with few differences being found between principal components and maximum
likelihood. Other work using RASI, with substantial samples from the Open University, has been carried
out by Richardson (2005), and shows similar factor structures.
Table 3 Principal components analysis of sub-scales of RASI for Long’s overall sample
(N = 4138 , 62 % variance extracted) Factor I II III
Deep Strategic Surface
Deep approach
Seeking meaning .74
Relating ideas .83
Use of evidence .82
Interest in ideas .72
Monitoring effectiveness .43 .65
Strategic approach
Organised studying .83
Time management .86
Achi evin g .73
Alertness to assessment .32 .48
Surface approach
Lack of purpose .42
Unrelated memorising .77
Syllabus boundness .42
Fear of failure .73
Principal component solutions were produced for each of the sub-samples, with the structure being
remarkable consistent, although medical students prior to Year 4 produced four or five factors (Table 4).
Table 4 Principal components analysis of sub-scales of RASI for medical students
Level 1 medical students Level 2 medical students Level 3
medical students
(N = 167, 164, 166) Factor I II III IV V I II III IV I II III IV
Deep Dp Strat Strat Surf Lack p. Deep Strat Surf Alert Deep Strat Surf
Alert
Deep approach
Seeking meaning .33 .68 .76 .33 .67 .49
Relating ideas .67 .33 .85 .87
Use of evidence .63 .41 .81 .83
Interest in ideas .71 - .31 .71 .73
Monitoring effectiveness .60 .34 - .30 .64 .43 .41 .71
Strategic approach
Organised studying .80 .81 .87
Time management .89 .86 .89
Achieving .38 .76 .88 .80
Alertness to assessment .77 .83 .83
Surface approach
Lack of purpose .89 - .48 .65 .53
Unrelated memorising .82 - .42 .74 - .31 .78 - .35
Syllabus-boundness - .69 .41 - .50 - .36 .42
Fear of failure .90 .80 .88
11

The factor structure for Level 1 medical students shows a greater overlap between deep and strategic
creating a separate factor related to alertness to assessment. The fifth factor is defined almost entirely by
a high loading on ‘lack of purpose’. At Levels 2 and 3, the fourth factor links alertness to assessment with
monitoring effectiveness and deep approach, while in Level 4 (not shown here) the analysis produces a
three-factor solution similar to that shown in Table 3.
12

Item analyses from the two studies in Tables 3 and 4 provided a more nuanced view of the sub-scale
structure and indicates that both deep and surface tend to divide into two components within the whole
sample analysed by Long (2000). The first component of deep loads most heavily on the ‘seeking
meaning’ and ‘monitoring effectiveness’ sub-scales and on individual items from other ‘deep’ sub-scales:
21. When I’m working on a new topic, I try to see in my own mind how all the ideas fit together.
36. When I read, I examine the details carefully to see how they fit in with what’s being said.
49. It’s important for me to be able to follow the argument, or to see the reason behind things.
This combination relates mainly to seeking meaning and checking on it while studying, while Factor II
focuses more on ‘interest in ideas’ and a more independent approach to seeking meaning, including:
33 Ideas in course books or articles often set me off on long chains of thought of my own.
46. I like to play around with ideas of my own even if they don't get me very far.
23. Often I find myself questioning things I hear in lectures or read in books.
The ‘strategic’ dimension is defined by all three main sub-scales in Factor III, with some overlap with
‘deep’, but ‘alertness to assessment’ is not found within the five factor solution from Long’s study. The
original ‘surface’ grouping splits into two, with Factor IV including three items from ‘unrelated
memorising’ and all ‘fear of failure’ items, while Factor V is defined by all ‘lack of purpose’ items along
with one ‘unrelated memorising’ item, namely
19. Much of what I’m studying makes little sense: it's like unrelated bits and pieces.
The analysis of responses from second- year medical students shows a rather different pattern, but one
which makes good sense within the context of medical education. The first factor contains all of the deep
sub-scales, including ‘monitoring effectiveness’, although several loadings are below 0.3, which suggests
that the wording of these items or their referents are not suited to the context of medical education. The
‘deep’ items are associated with negative loadings on ‘lack of purpose’, combining to suggest a
‘purposive deep’ approach. Factor II loads highly on all three strategic sub-scales, along with negative
loadings on two of the ‘syllabus-boundness’ items, indicating disagreement with the items
12. I tend to read very little beyond what is actually required to pass.
25. I concentrate on learning just those bits of information I have to know to pass
Factor III contains elements of ‘monitoring effectiveness’, ‘alertness to assessment demands’ and
‘syllabus-boundness’. The meaning of this factor can be seen by putting together the highest-loading
items in decreasing order of value.
2. When working on an assignment, I’m keeping in mind how best to impress the marker. (0.56)
25. I concentrate on learning just those bits of information I have to know to pass. (0.54)
28. I keep in mind who is going to mark an assignment and what they're likely to be looking for. (0.49)
38. I gear my studying closely to just what seems to be required for assignments and exams. (0.45)
This combination describes a strategic approach with the emphasis on second- guessing the markers and
has an instrumental focus in allocating effort. The final factor is defined mainly by ‘fear of failure’ and by
one of the items from ‘unrelated memorising’
45. I often have trouble in making sense of the things I have to remember.
The rather different combination found among the medical students shows the importance of carrying
out item analysing with any specific student group to determine whether any adjustment in the scoring
is called for. With medical students it appears that the items on ‘seeking meaning’ and ‘use of evidence’
need to be rephrased, or alternative items found, if the deep approach in studying medicine is to be fully
defined.
13

Investigating poor academic performance
The shortened version of RASI has been used, along with other items, to investigate reasons for poor
performance in the first year at university. Deep, strategic and surface apathetic approaches were treated
as single scales, but the motive components were kept separate. The items describing conceptions were
not used, but additional items indicated how well-prepared for university students judged themselves to
be, and what had influenced their studying. The inventory was given to 604 first-year students from six
departments in a technological university.
The analysis shown in Table 5 produced separate factors describing strategic and surface apathetic
approaches. The first factor showed its highest loadings on interest in academic content and deep
approach, but it also showed elements of both strategic (positive) and surface apathetic (negative)
approaches, together with a similar pattern for teaching preferences. The strategic approach in Factor II
linked the achieving motive with high academic performance and more weakly, with a lack of
interference in studying from social or sporting activities. The surface approach in Factor III was
associated not just with fear of failure, but also with inadequate prior knowledge (particularly in
mathematics) and, less strongly, with the effects on studying of doing paid work or of personal
relationships. This combination, not surprisingly, was negatively related to academic performance.
Table 5 Factor pattern matrix for variables derived from a short version of RASI
(N = 604, 46.0% variance) Factors I II III
Deep Strategic Surface
Preparation for higher education
Choosing courses out of interest .42
Experience in studying independently (- .25)
Having adequate prior knowledge - .46
Approaches to studying (excluding motives)
Deep approach .70
Strategic approach (.27) .75
Surface apathetic approach - .39 .53
Motives for studying
Interest in the content .75
Achieving high grades .81
Fear of failure .78
Influences on studying
Social or sporting activities - .31
Doing paid work .31
Personal relationships .39
Difficulties with maths .38
Teaching preferences
Encouraging understanding .55
Transmitting information (- .26)
Academic performance
Average first term marks .43 - .46
Rotated maximum likelihood analysis with delta set at zero. Loadings less than 0.3 have mostly been omitted.
This analysis showed additional correlates of approaches to studying and in particular drew attention to
the relationship between a perceived lack of adequate prior knowledge and the reported adoption of a
14

surface approach, but the surface approach was also associated with social and other activities found to
affect studying, including doing paid work. The study also found, as several other studies have, that, in
first year, academic performance is more closely related to strategic and (non-) surface approaches than
it is to deep, probably due to the usual nature of the assessment procedure in first year.
Conceptual mapping of the sub-scales within ASSIST
Figure 1 presents a conceptual mapping of these relationships, building up a hierarchical pattern from
the sub- scales of ASS IST to a broader, idealised view of the successful student. It also indicates some of
the other linkages identified in the factor analyses, suggesting that the approach to studying is affected
both by the student’s conception of learning and by the type of teaching experienced. The negative
relationships shown in the concept map indicate that low scores on the strategic approach are related to
the apathetic approach, while low levels of surface approach contribute to being a successful student.
Figure 1 Conceptual mapping of components of effective studying from ASSIST
Negative
Negative
Deep, strategic approaches to studying,
without surface, apathetic elements
Deep, strategic Surface, apathetic
Deep Strategic Surface
Intention to seek meaning
for yourself Intention to achieve the
highest possible grades
Holist Serialist
Interest in ideas and
monitoring understanding Alertness to assessment and
monitoring studying
Intention to cope minimally
with course requirements
Syllabus-bound focus on
minimum requirements
Relating
ideas Using
evidence Fear of
failure Routine
memorising
Time
management Organised
studying
Dissonance in approaches to studying
The broad outline of the factor structure of ASSIST is now well-established, although it has become clear
that some variation is to be expected between subject areas. These factors, and the aspects of studying
they have been designed to tap, provide a well-established analytic categories for describing general
tendencies in studying and their correlates. Factor analysis describes the relationships between variables
in ways which show the broad overall pattern clearly, but cannot identify different patterns of
relationship which may exist in sub-groups within a population (Meyer, 2000). For this reason,
alternative methods of analysis have been used, such as cluster analysis, which groups together
individuals who have responded to items in similar ways. By considering how the samples differ on
additional variables not included in the cluster analysis, a clearer picture of the nature of the clusters can
then be obtained. In a recent analysis (Entwistle, Tait & McCune, 2000) data from AS SIST was obtained
from 1284 first-year students from three long established and three recently established British
universities covering a spread of areas of study. A k-means relocation analysis was carried out. This
method allows the fullest possible description of the clusters. As the defining features of clusters vary as
15

increasing numbers of clusters are selected, it is important to check the stability of these features both
through the cluster levels and from split-half solutions at the same level (Entwistle & Brennan, 1971;
Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983). For these purposes, the six, twelve and eighteen cluster solutions were
examined, with the eighteen level giving the clearest differences. The full sample was then split
randomly into comparable halves using the appropriate SPSS procedure, and the eighteen cluster
solution repeated for samples of 665 and 619 students respectively.
To illustrate the kinds of variation which can be obtained using this technique, Table 6 compares
two high achieving groups and two whose self-rating of their academic progress was much lower.
Group 1 is the usual pattern of responses found among highly successful students – a deep strategic
approach with low scores on surface apathetic. Group 2 differs somewhat (as indicated by the figures in
bold) in that these students, more of whom were female and from non- science courses, combined deep,
well-organised and well-motivated studying with relatively high levels of anxiety and syllabus
boundness. Group 4 shows the opposite characteristics of Group 1 and also have the lowest self-ratings
of academic progress. Group 3, with almost equally poor levels of performance, respond in ways which
suggest a ‘dissonant’ pattern of responses, with the surface apathetic approach being associated with
indications of a relatively strong deep approach.
Table 6 Means of the centroids of clusters with contrasting self-ratings on academic progress
Cluster means Illustrative clusters taken from an 18 cluster solution
Sub-scales 1 2 3 4
(N = in 1284 sample) (60) (73) (43) (22)
Deep Approach
Seeking meaning 17.2 15.7 13.4 9.1
Relating ideas 16.3 15.1 14.4 9.2
Use of evidence 16.6 15.7 14.5 9.8
Interest in ideas 16.9 15.9 13.0 6.6
Surface Apathetic Approach
Lack of understanding 7.9 9.9 14.2 12.2
Lack of purpose 5.0 5.8 14.1 15.8
Syllabus-boundness 8.7 12.3 16.5 18.0
Fear of failure 8.8 14.1 17.1 13.4
Strategic Approach
Organised studying 16.4 14.4 8.7 7.3
Time management 17.2 14.9 7.1 6.2
Monitoring effectiveness 16.8 15.8 11.5 7.6
Achievement motivation 18.0 16.5 9.2 7.9
Preferences for learning environments
Deep (Encouraging understanding) 17.4 15.6 13.4 10.2
Surface (Transmitting information) 16.2 17.5 17.5 18.6
Descriptive statistics (not used in forming the clusters)
Self-rating of ac. progress (out of 9) 6.8 6.7 4.0 3.5
% of cluster who were (% in total sample)
in pre-1990s university 80.0 71.3 48.8 59.1 (68.7)
in science and engineering 56.6 48.0 62.8 77.3 (55.8)
male 46.7 34.2 58.1 68.2 (54.0)
Defining a deep approach
Seeking meaning
Intention – to understand ideas for yourself
16

Holist process, looking at the broad picture
Relating ideas to previous knowledge and experience
Looking for patterns and underlying principles
Serialist process, being cautious and logical
Checking evidence and relating it to conclusions
Examining logic and argument cautiously and critically
Monitoring understanding as learning progresses
Engaging with ideas and enjoying intellectual challenge
Research using the RASI within ASSIST and interviews looking at approaches to studying allow a fuller
picture of the defining features of the deep approach to be presented below. The features currently seen
as constituting a generalised deep approach are shown above. The approach stems from a sophisticated
conception of learning and also from an intrinsic interest in the course content; together, these create an
intention to understand ideas for oneself. Students using a deep approach start with an intention to
understand for themselves, linking new ideas to what they already know, and looking for recurring
patterns and underlying principles (holist thinking). They will also check evidence and relate it to the
conclusions reached, and adopt a generally cautious, critical stance to what they are learning (serialist
thinking). The alternation between holist and serialist processes of thinking builds up personal
understanding. The deep approach also involves intellectual engagement with the task and monitoring
the effectiveness of the learning as it progresses.
Stressing the main differences between deep and surface approaches (meaningful versus rote learning)
has, however, led to a belief that there can be no place for memorising within a deep approach. But the
more advanced conceptions of learning associated with a deep approach create an awareness that
different types of learning are suited to specific tasks. So, students using a deep approach will usually
recognise that understanding requires the distinctive ways of thinking of the discipline, including the
use of memorisation at some stage or for certain purposes. In many subject areas, such as languages,
geology or zoology, rote learning is a crucial part of developing understanding, while in elsewhere
other distinct learning processes will also be involved. While the intention to understand will be
common to a deep approach in all subject areas, the learning processes which that intention evoke
depend on the specific area of study.
Some researchers have suggested that the deep approach is little more than a proxy for ‘intelligence’, or
at least for its logical thinking component. Where studies have examined the relationship
between approach and intelligence among university students, however, only weak correlations
with general reasoning ability have been found (Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983, p. 235). However, a
deep approach does depend on having sufficient prior knowledge, so there is clearly a
combination of knowledge, intention, learning processes and study strategies within that
approach as it is seen in everyday studying.
Influences of perceptions of teaching on approaches to studying
The most recent studies using ASSIST, or equivalent study strategy inventories, have been exploring the
methods of teaching which seem to be most closely associated with the adoption of deep approaches of
studying. Trigwell, Prosser and Waterhouse (1999) have shown that higher levels of deep approach are
found among staff who describe themselves in the Approaches to Teaching Inventory as using what
Prosser and Trigwell (1999) have described as a student- oriented, conceptual development approach to
teaching, while surface approaches are more common when staff indicate that their approach is more
teacher-oriented and relies on information transmission.
Other recent research has shown that perceptions of academic quality, defined in terms of a total score
derived from the Course Experience Questionnaire (Ramsden, 1991), were closely related in distance
education to the approaches to studying reported by the students taking them. The characteristics of the
teaching provided are measured, within this questionnaire, as clear goals and standards, good teaching,
generic skills, appropriate assessment and appropriate workload. Another recent study – Enhancing Teaching-
learning Environments in Undergraduate Courses (ETL project) – has been looking at a broader set of
17

indicators of students’ experiences of the teaching- learning environment provided by staff, which also
includes the perceived demands students saw being put on them. Table 7 shows the results of one of the
factor analyses carried out which again shows the links that exist with approaches to studying,
measured in an adaptation of the RASI which omitted the motivational dimensions and included
additional items related to constructivist learning. Further details of this study can be found on the
project web site at htt p:/ / w ww.e tl.tla.ed.ac.uk /publications.html
The ETL project looked at students taking one of 25 course units across four subject areas. The modified
ASSIST scales were administered prior to students taking the unit and at the end of it. Thus the effects of
the teaching- learning environments on approaches to studying could be determined more closely than
had been possible in other research. The analysis involved 1950 students who had completed
questionnaires on the two occasions and maximum likelihood factor analysis extracted seven factors,
accounting for 57.9 % of the variance. The first factor covered all the main aspects of the experiences of
teaching, and also the self-rating of ‘knowledge and skills acquired during the course unit’. The factor
included rather lower loadings on deep approach (positive) and surface approach (negative), measured
after the teaching had finished but not beforehand. Factor II covered intrinsic reasons for attending
university as well as deep approach on both occasions, indicating the consistent element within this
approach. It also loaded on ‘teaching for understanding’. Factor III describes a generalised surface
approach, while Factor IV indicates consistency in ‘organised effort’, equivalent to the ‘strategic
approach’ in ASSIST but without the motivational component. Factor V loads on perceptions of the
demands experienced in the course unit as being manageable which, together with high self-ratings,
was interpreted as academic self-confidence. Factor VI brought together two indications of interest in
the course unit, while the final factor indicated that the students were comfortable with generic skills
required.
Table 7 Factor analysis of questionnaire scales from the ETL project on 1950 students
Scales and individual items (*) Factors I II III IV V VI VII
Exper Deep Surf Org Acad Inter Generic
Teach App App Effort Self-Conf Enjoy Skills
Reasons for attending university
Intrinsic reasons related to content .40
Lack of purpose now experienced * .43
Reasons for choosing the unit
Expected level of interest * .40
Expected easiness * .25
Approaches to studying prior to unit
Deep approach to learning .80
Surface approach to learning .77
Organised effort .60
Approaches to studying during the unit
Deep approach to learning .30 .44 .26
Surface approach to learning - .21 .52
Organised effort 1.06
Lack of difficulty in the demands made by unit
Prior knowledge required * .47
Pace at which new material introduced * .65
Academic difficulty of the material .70
Workload experienced * .55
Generic skills required .34 .50
Experiences of teaching and learning in the unit
Interest and enjoyment from the unit .28 .72
Aims and congruence of unit .60
Choice allowed .44
18

Teaching for understanding .58 .21
Set work and feedback .68
Staff enthusiasm and support .56
Student mutual support for learning .29
Learning outcomes
Self-rating of academic progress prior * -.34
Self-rating of academic progress during * .35
Knowledge and skills acquired during .33 .23
Generic skills acquired during the unit .68
Loadings below /.20/ omitted. Loadings of .40 and above in bold
As the factors are inter-correlated, and the method of analysis used seeks to describe factors in ways
which distinguish them as clearly as possible from other factors, the correlations between factors have to
be considered when interpreting the overall effects. But, even when that is done, it is difficult to see
clearly which aspects of teaching are associated with the differing approaches to studying, and the self-
ratings of achievement reported by the students. Table 8 reports correlations for the same sample from
the ETL project which make these connections easier to see. It indicates the relationships between
measures at differing stages in the students’ experiences, and at levels of generality, to the various
perceptions of the demands and teaching. Clearly, the reasons given for coming into higher education
are unlikely to have much influence on the demands made by specific course units later on, and the near
zero correlations bear this out. The higher correlations with ‘generic skills’ are an artefact of having a
similar item in both these short scales. More interesting is the way in which the pace and academic
difficulty experienced relate to both approaches during the unit and self-rated learning outcomes, and
the influences of the main experiences of teaching on approaches to studying and outcomes. The largest
increases in correlation between prior approaches and those during the course unit were found with
‘teaching for understanding’, ‘enjoyment and interest’, ‘set work and feedback’ and ‘aims and
congruence of the course unit’, all of which showed high correlations with the self-rating of ‘knowledge
and skills acquired during the course unit’ and, to a less extent, with the more general self-rating based
on the grades being given.
Table 8 Correlations between perceptions of the teaching-learning environment and
indicators of approaches to studying and learning outcomes
(N = 1950) Reasons Prior approaches Approaches during Outcomes
Intrinsic Lack of Deep Surf OrgEff. Deep Surf OrgEff. Know Achiev
purpose
Perceptions of teaching
Easiness of demands made
Prior knowledge required .06 -.03 .08 -.11 .04 .14 -.21 .07 .19 .24
Pace introducing material .01 -.03 .06 -.06 .05 .19 -.26 .16 .26 .32
Academic difficulty .06 -.05 .10 -.09 .03 .18 -.23 .12 .24 .33
Workload required .01 -.06 .03 -.04 .04 .06 -.14 .08 .12 .25
Generic skills required .09 -.14 .18 -.16 .21 .31 -.25 .31 .31 .30
Experiences of teaching and learning
Enjoyment and interest .23 -.18 .26 -.16 .18 .39 -.39 .29 .48 .39
Aims and congruence .08 -.17 .21 -.21 .14 .32 -.38 .25 .45 .28
Choice allowed .10 -.06 .20 -.09 .08 .30 -.16 .20 .29 .17
19

Teaching for understanding .19 -.13 .37 -.16 .16 .52 -.33 .28 .46 .27
Set work and feedback .10 -.12 .24 -.12 .15 .36 -.27 .26 .44 .29
Staff enthusiasm and support .09 -.12 .18 -.12 .12 .28 -.20 .21 .34 .19
Student mutual support .08 -.14 .14 -.05 .13 .22 -.08 .19 .22 .07
The bold figures are shown to allow the relationships with the deep approach to be tracked more easily.
References
Ballantine, J., Duff, A., & Larres, P. (2008), Accounting and Business students’ approaches to learning: A longitudinal
study”, Journal of Accounting Education, 26, 188-201.
Biggs, J. B. (1979). Individual differences in study processes and the quality of learning outcomes. Higher Education, 8, 381-394.
Biggs, J.B. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Biggs, J. B. (1993). What do inventories of student learning processes really measure? A theoretical review and clarification.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 3-19.
Byrne, M., Flood, B., & Willis, P. (2004), Validation of the Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students (ASSIST)
using Accounting students in the USA and Ireland: A research note”, Accounting Education, 13, 449-459.
Diseth, A. (2001), Validation of a Norwegian version of the Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students (ASSIST):
Application of structural equation modelling”, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 45(4), 381-394.
Entwistle. N. J. (1998). Motivation and approaches to studying: motivating and conceptions of teaching. In G. Thompson, S.
Armstrong, & S. Brown (Eds.), Motivating students (pp. 15-24). London: Kogan Page.
Entwistle. N. J. (2001). Learning styles and cognitive processes in constructing understanding at the university. In J. M. Collis
& S. Messick (eds.) Intelligence and personality (pp. 217-232). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Entwistle, N. J. (2009). Teaching for understanding at university: Deep approaches and distinctive ways of thinking. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Entwistle, N. J., & Brennan (1971). The academic performa nce of students II – Types of successful students. British Journal of
Educational Research, 41, 268-276.
Entwistle, N. J., & McCune, V. (2004). The conceptual bases of study strategy inventories. Educational Psychology Review, 16,
325-346.
Entwistle, N. J., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. London: Croom Helm.
Entwistle, N. J., & Tait, H. (1990). Approaches to learning, evaluations of teaching, and preferences for contrasting academic
environments. Higher Education, 19, 169-194.
Entwistle, N. J., Tait, H., & McCune, V. (1999). Scoring key for approaches to studying sub-scales within the approaches and study
skills inventory for students, unpublished. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh, Department of Higher and Further
Education.
Entwistle, N. J., Tait, H., & McCune, V. (2000). Patterns of response to an approaches to studying inventory across contrasting
groups and contexts. European Journal of the Psychology of Education, 15, 33-48.
Long, W. F. (2000). Detecting study approach dissonance in higher educational settings. An examination and use of the Approaches and
Study Skills Inventory for Students. Master of Letters Thesis. University of Aberdeen
Long, W. F. (2003). Dissonance detected by cluster analysis of responses to the Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for
Students ,Studies in Higher Education, 28 21-36
Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning. I. Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 46, 4-11.
Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1997). Approaches to learning. In F. Marton, D. J. Hounsell, & N. J. Entwistle (Eds.), The experience of
learning (2nd ed.). Edinburg h: Scottish Academic Press.
McCune, V. (2000). The development of first-year university students’ approaches to studying. Ph.D. Thesis. University of
Edinburgh.
McCune, V., & Entwistle, N. J. (2000). The deep approach to learning: analytic abstraction and idiosyncratic development. Paper
presented at the Innovations in Higher Education Conference, 30th August – 2nd September, Helsinki, Finland.
Meyer, J. H. F. (1991). Study orchestration: the manifestation, interpretation and consequences of contextualised approaches to
learning. Higher Education, 22, 297-316.
20

Meyer, J.H.F.. Parsons, P., & Dunne, T. T. (1990). Individual study orchestrations and their association with learning outcome.
Higher Education, 20, 67 - 89.
Meyer, J. H. F., Parsons, P. G., & Dunne, T. T. (1990). Study orchestration and learning outcome: evidence of association over
time among disadvantaged students. Higher Education, 20, 245-269.
Meyer, J. H. F. (2000). The modelling of ‘dissonant’ study orchestration in higher education. European Journal of the Psychology
of Education, XV, 5-18.
Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding learning and teaching. The experience of higher education. Buckingham: SRHE &
Open University Press.
Ramsden, P. (1991). A performance indicator of teaching quality in higher education: the Course Experience Questionnaire,
Studies in Higher Education, 16, 129-150.
Ramsden, P. & Entwistle, N. J. (1981). Effects of academic departments on students’ approaches to learning. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 51, 368-383.
Richardson, J. T. E. (2000). Researching Student Learning. Buckingham: Open University Press & SRHE.
Richardson, J. T. E. (2005). Students’ perceptions of academic quality and approaches to studying in distance education. British
Educational Research Journal, 31, 1-21.
Tait, H. & Entwistle, N. J. (1996). Identifying students at risk through ineffective study strategies. Higher Education, 31, 99-118.
Tait, H., Entwistle, N. J., & McCune, V. (1998). ASSIST: a reconceptualisation of the Approaches to Studying Inventory. In C.
Rust (ed.) Improving students as learners. Oxford: Oxford Brookes University, The Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning
Development.
Tait, H. & Entwistle, N. J. (1996). Identifying students at risk through ineffective study strategies. Higher Education, 31, 99-118.
Teixeira, C., Gomes, D., & Borges, J. (20130 The approaches to studying of Portuguese students of introductory accounting.
Accounting Education: an International Journal, 22, 193-210. DOI:10.1080 /09639284.2013.766426.
Trigwell, K., Prosser, M. & Waterhouse, F. (1999). Relations between teachers’ approaches to teaching and students’
approaches to learning. Higher Education, 37, 57-70.
Valadas, S., Gonçalves, F. & Faísca, L. (2010), Approaches to studying in higher education Portuguese students: A
Portuguese version of the Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students, Higher Education, 59, 259-275.
21

A S S I S T
A S S I S T
Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students
This questionnaire has been designed to allow you to describe, in a systematic way, how you go about
learning and studying. The technique involves asking you a substantial number of questions that
overlap to some extent to provide good overall coverage of different ways of studying. Most of the
items are based on comments made by other students. Please respond truthfully, so that your answers
accurately describe your actual ways of studying, and work your way through the questionnaire quite
quickly, making sure that you give a response to every item.
Background information
Name or Identifier ........................................... Age ....... years Sex M / F
University or College ....................................... Faculty or School ......................................
Course ......................................................... Year of study ........
A. What is learning?
When you think about the term 'LEARNING ', what does it mean to you?
Consider each of these statements carefully, and rate them in terms of how close they are to your own way of thinking about it.
Very Quite Not so Rather Very
close close close different different
a. Making sure you remember things well. 5 4 3 2 1
b. Developing as a person. 5 4 3 2 1
c. Building up knowledge by acquiring facts and information. 5 4 3 2 1
d Being able to use the information you've acquired. 5 4 3 2 1
e. Understanding new material for yourself. 5 4 3 2 1
f. Seeing things in a different and more meaningful way. 5 4 3 2 1
PLEASE TURN OVER
22

© 2006 Noel Entwistle , Velda McCune (University f Edinburgh) and Hilary Tait (Napier University)
23

B. Approaches to studying [also called the Revised Approaches to Studying Inventory (RASI)]
The next part of this questionnaire asks you to indicate your relative agreement or disagreement with comments
about studying made by other students. Work through the comments, giving your immediate response. In
deciding your answers, think in terms of this specific course unit or module , unless told to do otherwise . Again,
it is very important that you answer all the questions: when you’ve finished, please check you have done that.
5 means agree ( √ ) 4 = agree somewhat ( √? ) 2 = disagree somewhat ( x? ) 1 = disagree ( x ).
Try not to use 3 = unsure ( ?? ), unless you really have to, or if it cannot apply to you or your course.
√ √? ?? x? x
1. I manage to find conditions for studying which allow me to get on with my work easily. 5 4 3 2 1
2. When working on an assignment, I'm keeping in mind how best to impress the marker. 5 4 3 2 1
3. Often I find myself wondering whether the work I am doing here is really worthw hile. 5 4 3 2 1
4. I usually set out to understand for myself the meaning of what we have to learn. 5 4 3 2 1
5.I organise my study time carefully to make the best use of it. 5 4 3 2 1
6.I find I have to concentrate on just memorising a good deal of what I have to learn. 5 4 3 2 1
7.I go over the work I've done carefully to check the reasoning and that it makes sense. 5 4 3 2 1
8. Often I feel I'm drowning in the sheer amount of material we're having to cope with. 5 4 3 2 1
9.I look at the evidence carefully and try to reach my own conclusion about what I’m studying. 5 4 3 21
10. It’s important for me to feel that I’m doing as well as I really can on the courses here. 5 4 3 2 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11.I try to relate ideas I come across to those in other topics or other courses whenever possible. 5 4 3 21
12.I tend to read very little beyond what is actually required to pass. 5 4 3 2 1
13. Regularly I find myself thinking about ideas from lectures when I’m doing other things. 5 4 3 2 1
14. I think I'm quite systematic and organised when it comes to revising for exams. 5 4 3 2 1
15. I look carefully at tutors' comments on course work to see how to get higher marks next time. 5 4 3 21
16.There’s not much of the work here that I find interesting or relevant. 5 4 3 2 1
17. When I read an article or book, I try to find out for myself exactly what the author means. 5 4 3 2 1
18.I’m pretty good at getting down to work whenever I need to. 5 4 3 2 1
19.Much of what I’m studying makes little sense: it's like unrelated bits and pieces. 5 4 3 2 1
20. I think about what I want to get out of this course to keep my studying well focused. 5 4 3 2 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
21.When I’m working on a new topic, I try to see in my own mind how all the ideas fit together. 5 4 3 21
22 I often worry about whether I'll ever be able to cope with the work properly. 5 4 3 2 1
23. Often I find myself questioning things I hear in lectures or read in books. 5 4 3 2 1
24. I feel that I'm getting on well, and this helps me put more effort into the work. 5 4 3 2 1
25. I concentrate on learning just those bits of information I have to know to pass. 5 4 3 2 1
26. I find that studying academic topics can be quite exciting at times. 5 4 3 2 1
27.I'm good at following up some of the reading suggested by lecturers or tutors. 5 4 3 2 1
28. I keep in mind who is going to mark an assignment and what they're likely to be looking for. 5 4 3 21
29. When I look back, I sometimes wonder why I ever decided to come here. 5 4 3 2 1
30. When I am reading, I stop from time to time to reflect on what I am trying to learn from it. 5 4 3 2 1
24

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
√ √? ?? x? x
31.I work steadily through the term or semester, rather than leave it all until the last minute. 5 4 3 2 1
32. I'm not really sure what's important in lectures so I try to get down all I can. 5 4 3 2 1
33. Ideas in course books or articles often set me off on long chains of thought of my own. 5 4 3 2 1
34. Before starting work on an assignment or exam question, I think first how best to tackle it. 5 4 3 2 1
35.I often seem to panic if I get behind with my work. 5 4 3 2 1
36.When I read, I examine the details carefully to see how they fit in with what’s being said. 5 4 3 2 1
37. I put a lot of effort into studying because I'm determine d to do well. 5 4 3 2 1
38. I gear my studying closely to just what seems to be required for assignments and exams. 5 4 3 2 1
39. Some of the ideas I come across on the course I find really gripping. 5 4 3 2 1
40. I usually plan out my week's work in advance, either on paper or in my head. 5 4 3 2 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
41. I keep an eye open for what lecturers seem to think is important and concentrate on that. 5 4 3 2 1
42. I’m not really interested in this course, but I have to take it for other reasons. 5 4 3 2 1
43. Before tackling a problem or assignment, I first try to work out what lies behind it. 5 4 3 2 1
44. I generally make good use of my time during the day. 5 4 3 2 1
45.I often have trouble in making sense of the things I have to remember. 5 4 3 2 1
46. I like to play around with ideas of my own even if they don't get me very far. 5 4 3 2 1
47. When I finish a piece of work, I check it through to see if it really meets the requirements. 5 4 3 2 1
48 Often I lie awake worrying about work I think I won't be able to do. 5 4 3 2 1
49 It’s important for me to be able to follow the argument, or to see the reason behind things. 5 4 3 2 1
50. I don't find it at all difficult to motivate myself. 5 4 3 2 1
51. I like to be told precisely what to do in essays or other assignments. 5 4 3 2 1
52. I sometimes get 'hooked' on academic topics and feel I would like to keep on studying them. 5 4 3 21
C. Preferences for different types of course and teaching
5 means definitely like ( √ ) 4 = like to some extent ( √? ) 2 = dislike to some extent ( x? ) 1 = definitely dislike ( x ).
Try not to use 3 = unsure ( ?? ), unless you really have to, or if it cannot apply to you or your course.
√ √? ?? x? x
a. lecturers who tell us exactly what to put down in our notes. 5 4 3 2 1
b. lecturers who encourage us to think for ourselves and show us how they themselves think 5 4 3 2 1
c. exams which allow me to show that I've thought about the course material for myself. 5 4 3 2 1
d. exams or tests which need only the material provided in our lecture notes. 5 4 3 2 1
e. courses in which it's made very clear just which books we have to read. 5 4 3 2 1
f. courses where we're encouraged to read around the subject a lot for ourselves. 5 4 3 2 1
g. books which challenge you and provide explanations which go beyond the lectures. 5 4 3 2 1
h. books which give you definite facts and information which can easily be learned. 5 4 3 2 1
Finally, how well do you think you have been doing in your assessed work overall, so far?
Please rate yourself obj ective ly on this nine-point scale, based on the grades you have actually been obtaining
Very well Quite Well About average Not so well Rather badly
25

9 87654321
Thank you very much for spending time completing this questionnaire: it is much appreciated.
A S S I S T
A S S I S T Short Version
Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students
This questionnaire has been designed to allow you to describe, in a systematic way, how you go about learning
and studying. The technique involves asking you a substantial number of questions which overlap to some extent
to provide good overall coverage of different ways of studying. Most of the items are based on comments made
by other students. Please respond truthfully, so that your answers accurately describe your actual ways of
studying, and work your way through the questionnaire quite quickly , making sure that you give a response to
every item.
In deciding your answers, think in terms of this particular lecture course. It is also very important that you
answer all the questions: check you have.
5 means agree ( √) 4 = agree somewhat ( ? √) 2 = disagree somewhat ( x? ) 1 = disagree ( x ).
Try not to use 3 = unsure ( ?? ), unless you really have to, or if it cannot apply to you or your course.
√? √?? x? x
1. I often have trouble in making sense of the things I have to remember. 5 4 3 2 1
2. When I’m reading an article or book, I try to find out for myself exactly what the author means. 5 4 3 2 1
3.I organise my study time carefully to make the best use of it. 5 4 3 2 1
4.There’s not much of the work here that I find interesting or relevant.54321
5. I work steadily through the term or semester, rather than leave it all until the last minute. 5 4 3 2 1
6. Before tackling a problem or assignment, I first try to work out what lies behind it. 5 4 3 2 1
7.I’m pretty good at getting down to work whenever I need to. 5 4 3 2 1
8.Much of what I’m studying makes little sense: it's like unrelated bits and pieces. 5 4 3 2 1
9.I put a lot of effort into studying because I'm determined to do well. 5 4 3 2 1
10. When I’m working on a new topic, I try to see in my own mind how all the ideas fit together. 5 4 3 2 1
11.I don't find it at all difficult to motivate myself. 5 4 3 2 1
12. Often I find myself questioning things I hear in lectures or read in books. 5 4 3 2 1
13. I think I’m quite systematic and organised when it comes to revising for exams. 54321
14. Often I feel I'm drowning in the sheer amount of material we're having to cope with.. 5 4 3 2 1
15. Ideas in course books or articles often set me off on long chains of thought of my own. 5 4 3 2 1
16.I’m not really sure what’s important in lectures, so I try to get down all I can. 5 4 3 2 1
17. When I read, I examine the details carefully to see how they fit in with what’s being said. 5 4 3 2 1
18. I often worry about whether I'll ever be able to cope with the work properly. 5 4 3 2 1
Thank you very much for spending time completing this questionnaire: it is much
appreciated.
26

If you would like to make any additional comments about your ways of studying, please make them on the back of this sheet.
© 2006 Noel Entwistle ASSIST short version - amended, March, 2006
27

Scoring Key
for the Short Version of the Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students (ASSIST)
Scoring procedure
Students respond to items on a 1 - 5 scale (5 high). Sub-scale scores are formed by adding together the
responses on each of the items in that sub-scale. Scoring is usually carried out by computer, using a
program such as SPSS. Each item is set as a variable (e.g. D04 = Deep item 4), and then a scale total is
produced by creating a new variable by summing the items. For example, Deep approach = D02 + D06
+D10 + D12 +D15 + D17. The other two scale scores can then be formed in a similar way.
Deep Approach
D02 When I’m reading an article or book, I try to find out for myself exactly what the author means.
D06 Before tackling a problem or assignment, I first try to work out what lies behind it.
D10 When I’m working on a new topic, I try to see in my own mind how all the ideas fit together.
D12 Often I find myself questioning things I hear in lectures or read in books.
D15 Ideas in course books or articles often set me off on long chains of thought of my own.
D17 When I read, I examine the details carefully to see how they fit in with what’s being said.
Strategic Approach
T03.I organise my study time carefully to make the best use of it.
T05. I work steadily through the term or semester, rather than leave it all until the last minute.
T07.I’m pretty good at getting down to work whenever I need to.
T09.I put a lot of effort into studying because I'm determined to do well.
T11.I don't find it at all difficult to motivate myself.
T13. I think I’m quite systematic and organised when it comes to revising for exams.
Surface Approach
S01. I often have trouble in making sense of the things I have to remember
S04.There’s not much of the work here that I find interesting or relevant.
S08.Much of what I’m studying makes little sense: it's like unrelated bits and pieces.
S14. Often I feel I'm drowning in the sheer amount of material we're having to cope with.
S16 I’m not really sure what’s important in lectures, so I try to get down all I can.
S18.I often worry about whether I'll ever be able to cope with the work properly.
28