ArticleBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Individual Differences in Student Learning: A Comparison Between the Student Approaches to Learning and Concept-Building Frameworks.
Article in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Symbolic Participation or Substantial Learning Behavior? A PSM-Based Comparison Between Honors and Non-Honors Undergraduates from Two Top Elite Universities in China.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A Special Issue Introduction: Educational Applications of Cognitive Psychology.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In cognitive science and education research, learning has been described to occur at surface and deep levels. Learners are thought to orient more toward one of these approaches to learning versus the other. In cognitive science, this has been assessed with a concept-building framework using objective function learning tasks to classify students as exemplar (surface) or abstraction (deep) learners. In education, the student approach to learning (SAL) framework has used self-report survey measures to classify learners as relying on surface approaches or deep approaches to learning. In two studies, we directly compared these two frameworks using self-report data from the Modified Approaches and Study Skills Inventory (M-ASSIST) and the Revised Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F) along with objectively determined concept-building classifications from a computer-based function learning task. Potential links between exemplar learning and surface approaches and between abstraction learning and deep approaches were not found. We discuss possible explanations for the absence of empirical links, including inaccuracies in students' metacognitions regarding their learning, the measures, and possible differences between learning-content-dependencies of the survey responses versus content neutrality of the concept-building task. We conclude by suggesting directions for future work in assessing and comparing surface and deep learning across frameworks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.