Background

During the past decade, researchers internationally have begun employing sophisticated longitudinal research designs to examine the role of student motivation within transitions to higher education. These researchers have examined the first-year university experience from both variable- (e.g., Kyndt, Gijbels, Donche, & Van Petegem, 2013)  and person-centered (e.g., Ratelle, Guay, Vallerand, Larose, & Senécal, 2007) perspectives. These efforts have made significant steps towards explaining how students’ motivations change in the transition to university; yet, these studies generally fail to address how student learning changes as a result. Longstanding research examining the development of students’ approaches to learning within higher education (e.g., Biggs, 1987; Watkins & Hattie, 1985) suggested a broad pattern of decreasing deep approaches. Employing the Inventory of Learning Styles, other researchers have observed the opposite trend (Busato, Prins, Elshout, & Hamaker, 1998; Vermetten, Lodewijks, & Vermunt, 1999). More recent studies have found little significant change in students’ approaches to learning over time (Zeegers, 2010). These inconsistent findings raise questions concerning the role of different educational contexts (Netherlands/Australia) and nature of research analyses (based on observed variables) implemented. In order to assess the validity of past longitudinal research into the effect of higher education on student learning and compliment recent motivation-orientated research, a person-centered longitudinal study investigating the development of students’ approaches to learning is called for. Furthermore, to extend this investigation beyond Western higher education, the current study was undertaken in Japan. 

The current study aimed to add to past motivation and strategy variable-centered studies by estimating and then examining the nature of student groups within a first-year population. Furthermore, the current study moved beyond the estimation of groups, to the nature of class membership change across the eight months of students’ first year at university.

This study was undertaken in the poorly understood context of Japanese higher education. Japan, while home to perhaps the most established system of higher education in Pacific Asia, faces many challenges to the quality and standing of its institutions. Increasing competition both nationally and efforts to compete for students internationally are currently driving reforms. It can be argued that many of these reform efforts lack strong grounding in empirical research. The current paper thereby aims to contribute to the development of student learning research within the country, which will be open to discussion and collaboration internationally. 

Aims

The current study concentrated on questions raised by recent student learning research in the context of Japanese higher education (Author, under review, 2012, 2014, 2014). In part, the current research aimed to address the positive correlation between surface and deep approaches, which has consistently resulted from past studies in both Japan (Author, 2012) and Hong Kong (e.g., Kember, Biggs, & Leung, 2004). Author (under review) also noted that students’ first impressions of the learning environment could play a powerful predictive role within future strategies. The current study aimed to extend these findings beyond the associations between latent variables, and examine possible effects on individuals and latent groups of students over time. 

References Biggs, J. B. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Hawthorne, Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research. Busato, V. V., Prins, F. J., Elshout, J. J., & Hamaker, C. (1998). Learning styles: A crosssectional and longitudinal study in higher education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 427-441. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (2006). LISREL 8.80. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc. Kember, D., Biggs, J. B., & Leung, D. Y. P. (2004). Examining the multidimensionality of approaches to learning through the development of a revised version of the Learning Process Questionnaire. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 261-279. doi: 10.1348/000709904773839879 Kyndt, E., Gijbels, D., Donche, V., & Van Petegem, P. (2013). Unraveling student learning and motivation in higher education. Paper presented at the Biannual conference Earli, Munchen, Germany. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2013). Mplus user's guide. (Sixth ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén. Nylund, K. L., Asparoutiov, T., & Muthen, B. O. (2007). Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: A Monte Carlo simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling-a Multidisciplinary Journal, 14, 535-569. Ramsden, P. (1991). A performance indicator of teaching quality in higher education: The Course Experience Questionnaire. Studies in Higher Education, 16, 129-150. doi: 10.1080/03075079112331382944 Ratelle, C. F., Guay, F., Vallerand, R. J., Larose, S., & Senécal, C. (2007). Autonomous, controlled, and amotivated types of academic motivation: A person-oriented analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 734-746. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.99.4.734 Trigwell, K., & Ashwin, P. (2006). Undergraduate students' experience of learning at the University of Oxford. Unpublished report. University of Oxford. Oxford. Vermetten, Y. J., Lodewijks, H. G., & Vermunt, J. D. (1999). Consistency and variability of learning strategies in different university courses. Higher Education, 37(1), 1-21. Watkins, D., & Hattie, J. (1985). A longitudinal study of the approach to learning of Australian tertiary students. Human Learning, 4 127—142.