This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution and sharing with colleagues.
本文出现在爱思唯尔出版的期刊中。附带的副本提供给作者用于内部非商业研究和教育用途，包括在作者所在机构的教学和与同事分享。
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party websites are prohibited.
其他用途，包括复制和分发，或出售或许可副本，或发布到个人、机构或第三方网站，均被禁止。
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or institutional repository. Authors requiring further information regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are encouraged to visit:
在大多数情况下，作者被允许将其文章的版本（例如，Word 或 Tex 格式）发布到个人网站或机构库中。需要进一步了解爱思唯尔的存档和手稿政策的作者被鼓励访问：

Received 8 February 2010 收到日期：2010 年 2 月 8 日
Received in revised form 10 June 2010
2010 年 6 月 10 日以修订形式收到
Accepted 14 June 2010 接受于 2010 年 6 月 14 日

Approaches to learning 学习方法
Student-centred learning environment
以学生为中心的学习环境
Higher education 高等教育

© 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
© 2010 爱思唯尔有限公司。保留所有权利。

4. Conclusions and discussion. … 251
4. 结论与讨论。… 251
5. Limitations of the study and suggestions for further research … 253
5. 研究的局限性和进一步研究的建议 … 253
Appendix A. Results of the literature search. … 254
附录 A. 文献检索结果。… 254
References … 257 参考文献 … 257

Over the past decades, a large amount of research has been conducted on students’ learning in higher education. One way to describe students’ learning is by means of their ‘approaches to learning’, which is the focus of the current review. An approach to learning embeds the intention of the student when starting a task and the learning processes and strategies used to carry out a task (Biggs, 2001; Entwistle, 1991, 1997; Marton & Säljö, 1997). Numerous attempts have been made to optimise students’ approaches to learning towards deep, meaningful learning by means of implementing student-centred teaching methods (e.g. Struyven, Dochy, Janssens, & Gielen, 2006; Wilson & Fowler, 2005). However, these efforts have not always been successful. Inducing a deep approach to learning seems to be quite difficult (Marton & Säljö, 1997). Therefore, this review focuses on factors that may encourage or discourage the adoption of a deep approach to learning in student-centred learning environments.
在过去的几十年中，关于高等教育中学生学习的研究已经进行了大量的工作。描述学生学习的一种方式是通过他们的“学习方式”，这是当前评审的重点。学习方式包含了学生在开始任务时的意图以及用于执行任务的学习过程和策略（Biggs, 2001; Entwistle, 1991, 1997; Marton & Säljö, 1997）。已经进行了许多尝试，通过实施以学生为中心的教学方法（例如，Struyven, Dochy, Janssens, & Gielen, 2006; Wilson & Fowler, 2005）来优化学生的学习方式，以实现深度和有意义的学习。然而，这些努力并不总是成功的。引导深度学习方式似乎相当困难（Marton & Säljö, 1997）。因此，本次评审关注可能鼓励或阻碍在以学生为中心的学习环境中采用深度学习方式的因素。

With Marton and Säljö being pioneers in the 1970s (Marton, 1976; Säljö, 1975), the concept of approaches to learning has been a firmly established concept in the educational research literature for several decades now. Originally, Marton (1976) and Säljö (1975) used a phenomenographic research approach to reveal differences between students in how they approached a specific task. While some students made use of deep learning processes which were associated with an intention to understand, others used surface learning processes in order to reproduce the learning materials. This combination of intention and related processes was called an ‘approach to learning’.
随着马顿和萨尔乔在 1970 年代成为先驱（马顿，1976；萨尔乔，1975），学习方法的概念在教育研究文献中已经确立了数十年。最初，马顿（1976）和萨尔乔（1975）采用现象图研究方法揭示了学生在处理特定任务时的不同方式。一些学生利用与理解意图相关的深度学习过程，而其他学生则使用表层学习过程以重现学习材料。这种意图与相关过程的结合被称为“学习方法”。

Based on the results of the phenomenographic research of Marton and Säljö, a new research tradition arose, i.e. quantifying students’ approaches to learning by means of self-report questionnaires. As a consequence, several inventories were developed in the subsequent years based on this approaches to learning perspective (Lonka, Olkinuora, & Mäkinen, 2004). In the current review, we focus on two of the most frequently used questionnaires to measure students’ approaches to learning in higher education (Entwistle & McCune, 2004; Leung, Ginns, & Kember, 2008; Richardson, 2004), i.e. the Approaches to Studying Inventory (ASI) (Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983) and the Study Process Questionnaire (SPQ) (Biggs, 1987).
基于 Marton 和 Säljö的现象图研究结果，出现了一种新的研究传统，即通过自我报告问卷量化学生的学习方式。因此，在随后的几年中，基于这种学习方式视角开发了几种清单（Lonka, Olkinuora, & Mäkinen, 2004）。在当前的综述中，我们关注两种在高等教育中最常用的问卷，以测量学生的学习方式（Entwistle & McCune, 2004; Leung, Ginns, & Kember, 2008; Richardson, 2004），即学习方式清单（ASI）（Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983）和学习过程问卷（SPQ）（Biggs, 1987）。

The ASI (Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983) distinguishes four sets of related intentions, motives and processes of learning and studying, which are referred to as four orientations to studying: meaning, reproducing, achieving and non-academic orientation. Students with a meaning orientation are motivated by an interest in the learning contents and an intention to understand. Therefore, they use strategies as relating ideas, using evidence and comprehension learning. Oppositely, students with a reproducing orientation show an extrinsic motivation and a fear of failure, which is accompanied with rote memorisation and a narrow-syllabus-bound attitude. Furthermore, students with an achieving orientation are stimulated by a need for achievement. These students are aware of the study requirements and try to accomplish them by using organised study methods. The latter group of students with a non-academic orientation, which is sometimes referred to as an apathetic approach (Tait & Entwistle, 1996), put across low levels of motivation, negative attitudes towards studying and disorganised study methods (Entwistle & McCune, 2004; Entwistle & Tait, 1990).
ASI（Entwistle & Ramsden，1983）区分了四组相关的学习和研究意图、动机和过程，这被称为四种学习取向：意义、再现、成就和非学术取向。具有意义取向的学生受到对学习内容的兴趣和理解意图的激励。因此，他们使用关联思想、使用证据和理解学习等策略。相反，具有再现取向的学生表现出外在动机和对失败的恐惧，这伴随着死记硬背和狭隘的课程态度。此外，具有成就取向的学生受到成就需求的刺激。这些学生意识到学习要求，并试图通过使用有组织的学习方法来完成它们。后者的非学术取向学生，有时被称为冷漠的学习方式（Tait & Entwistle，1996），表现出低水平的动机、对学习的消极态度和无组织的学习方法（Entwistle & McCune，2004；Entwistle & Tait，1990）。

Similarly, the SPQ (Biggs, 1987) discriminates three factors or ‘approaches to learning’ consisting of a motive and a related strategy component: a deep, surface and achieving approach. The motive of students with a deep approach is an intrinsic interest and appropriate engagement in the task, which is accompanied with seeking for meaning as learning strategy. In contrast, students with a surface approach are motivated by a fear of failure and a desire to keep out of trouble with as little effort as possible. As a consequence, their learning strategies are limited to selective memorisation. The achieving approach refers to students making an effective use of space and time (=strategy) in order to maximise grades (=motive) (Biggs, Kember, & Leung, 2001). Whereas the first two approaches describe ways in which students handle a learning task, the achieving (or strategic) approach indicates how students organise their learning (e.g. when, where, how long they learn) (Biggs et al., 2001; Lonka et al., 2004).
同样，SPQ（Biggs，1987）区分了三个因素或“学习方式”，包括动机和相关的策略成分：深度、表面和成就方式。采用深度方式的学生的动机是对任务的内在兴趣和适当的参与，这伴随着寻求意义作为学习策略。相反，采用表面方式的学生则是出于对失败的恐惧和尽量避免麻烦的愿望，努力尽可能少。因此，他们的学习策略仅限于选择性记忆。成就方式指的是学生有效利用空间和时间（=策略）以最大化成绩（=动机）（Biggs，Kember，& Leung，2001）。前两种方式描述了学生处理学习任务的方式，而成就（或战略）方式则指示学生如何组织他们的学习（例如，何时、何地、学习多长时间）（Biggs 等，2001；Lonka 等，2004）。

The conceptualisation of learning (meaning/deep versus reproducing/surface), which is grounded in the original conceptualisation of Marton and Säljö, is similar in both questionnaires (Entwistle & McCune, 2004) and central to the current review. Moreover, a third aspect of studying is described in both questionnaires, i.e. the achieving or strategic approach. However, recent research on the SPQ has shown that approaches to learning are best described through the use of two factors, namely a deep and surface approach, without the need for a separate strategic approach scale (Zeegers, 2002). It has been suggested that the strategic approach should be more correctly seen as a component of the deep approach (Kember & Leung, 1998; Zeegers, 2002, 2004). On the other hand, in a recent version of the ASI (Entwistle, McCune, & Hounsell, 2002), the strategic approach is still present by means of two scales: organised studying (including time management) and effort management (including concentration) (Entwistle & McCune, 2004). Throughout the years several research studies have been conducted on both questionnaires resulting in adapted versions of the original ASI and SPQ, e.g. Revised Approaches to Studying Inven-
学习的概念化（意义/深度与再现/表面），基于 Marton 和 Säljö的原始概念化，在两个问卷中是相似的（Entwistle & McCune, 2004），并且是当前评审的核心。此外，两个问卷中都描述了学习的第三个方面，即成就或战略方法。然而，关于 SPQ 的最新研究表明，学习方法最好通过使用两个因素来描述，即深度和表面方法，而不需要单独的战略方法量表（Zeegers, 2002）。有人建议，战略方法应该更正确地被视为深度方法的一个组成部分（Kember & Leung, 1998；Zeegers, 2002, 2004）。另一方面，在 ASI 的最新版本中（Entwistle, McCune, & Hounsell, 2002），战略方法仍然通过两个量表存在：有组织的学习（包括时间管理）和努力管理（包括专注力）（Entwistle & McCune, 2004）。多年来，针对这两个问卷进行了多项研究，导致了原始 ASI 和 SPQ 的适应版本，例如修订的发明研究方法
tory (RASI) (Entwistle & Tait, 1994), Approaches and Study Skill Inventory for Students (ASSIST) (Tait, Entwistle, & McCune, 1998), Approaches to Learning and Studying Inventory (ALSI) (Entwistle & McCune, 2004), and Revised Two Factor Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F) (Biggs et al., 2001).
tory (RASI) (Entwistle & Tait, 1994), 学生学习方法与技能清单 (ASSIST) (Tait, Entwistle, & McCune, 1998), 学习与研究方法清单 (ALSI) (Entwistle & McCune, 2004), 以及修订版双因素学习过程问卷 (R-SPQ-2F) (Biggs et al., 2001)。

As research on students’ approaches to learning evolved, interest arose in factors explaining those approaches, such as the teaching methods, since approaches to learning are not considered to be a stable psychological trait (Nijhuis, Segers, & Gijselaers, 2005; Struyven et al., 2006). On the contrary, they depend crucially on the context within which a task is being experienced (Entwistle, 1991; Entwistle & McCune, 2004). As a consequence, a student can adopt one approach in a certain context and another approach in another context, depending on the characteristics of that context and the learner’s interpretation thereof (Biggs, 2001).
随着对学生学习方式的研究不断发展，人们对解释这些学习方式的因素产生了兴趣，例如教学方法，因为学习方式并不被视为一种稳定的心理特征（Nijhuis, Segers, & Gijselaers, 2005; Struyven et al., 2006）。相反，它们在很大程度上依赖于任务所经历的上下文（Entwistle, 1991; Entwistle & McCune, 2004）。因此，学生可以在某种上下文中采用一种学习方式，而在另一种上下文中采用另一种学习方式，这取决于该上下文的特征以及学习者对其的解读（Biggs, 2001）。

The past decennia, a wide range of new teaching methods came up due to the influence of the constructivist learning theory, which defined learning as an “active process in which learners are active sense makers who seek to build coherent and organised knowledge” (Mayer, 2004, p. 14). This constructivist learning theory acted as a source for the development of student-centred approaches (Hannafin, Hill, & Land, 1997), which were described by Cannon and Newble (2000, pp. 16-17) as “ways of thinking about teaching and learning that emphasise student responsibility and activity in learning rather than content or what the teachers are doing”. Accordingly, several teaching methods were developed that indeed emphasised students’ behavioural activity during learning (Mayer, 2004), e.g. student-activating teaching methods (Struyven et al., 2006), problem-based learning (Dochy, Segers, Van den Bossche, & Gijbels, 2003), powerful learning environments (De Corte, 2000), minimal guidance approach (Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006), discovery learning (Mayer, 2004), open-ended learning environments (Hannafin et al., 1997), collaborative/cooperative learning (Slavin, 1995), project-based learning (Dekeyser & Baert, 1999), and case-based learning (Ellis, Marcus, & Taylor, 2005). Characteristics of these student-centred teaching methods are: (1) an activity and independence of the student, (2) a coaching role of the teacher, and (3) knowledge which is regarded as a tool instead of an aim (Dochy, Segers, Gijbels, & Van den Bossche, 2002). These teaching methods that emphasise students’ activity are often presented as the opposite of traditional lectures where the teacher provides information that is passively received by the students (Prince, 2004).
过去几十年，由于建构主义学习理论的影响，出现了一系列新的教学方法，该理论将学习定义为“一个积极的过程，在这个过程中，学习者是积极的意义建构者，他们寻求建立连贯和有组织的知识”（Mayer，2004，第 14 页）。这种建构主义学习理论成为以学生为中心的方法发展的源泉（Hannafin，Hill，& Land，1997），Cannon 和 Newble（2000，第 16-17 页）将其描述为“关于教学和学习的思考方式，强调学生在学习中的责任和活动，而不是内容或教师的行为”。因此，开发了几种确实强调学生在学习过程中行为活动的教学方法（Mayer，2004），例如学生激活教学方法（Struyven 等，2006），基于问题的学习（Dochy，Segers，Van den Bossche，& Gijbels，2003），强有力的学习环境（De Corte，2000），最小指导方法（Kirschner，Sweller，& Clark，2006），发现学习（Mayer，2004），开放式学习环境（Hannafin 等）。，1997），协作/合作学习（Slavin，1995），基于项目的学习（Dekeyser & Baert，1999）和案例学习（Ellis，Marcus，& Taylor，2005）。这些以学生为中心的教学方法的特点是：（1）活动和学生的独立性，（2）教师的辅导角色，以及（3）知识被视为工具而不是目标（Dochy，Segers，Gijbels，& Van den Bossche，2002）。这些强调学生活动的教学方法通常被视为与传统讲座的对立，后者中教师提供的信息被学生被动接收（Prince，2004）。

While there is a lot of confusion about what student-centred learning actually is (Lea, Stephenson, & Troy, 2003) and while it can take many different teaching forms in practice as is illustrated above, one recurring aim of these teaching methods is fostering deep learning and understanding (Hannafin et al., 1997; Lea et al., 2003; Mayer, 2004), which can be expressed by a deep approach to learning. In the previous decade, both ASI and SPQ and their adapted versions were used to investigate the effects of student-centred learning environments on approaches to learning, in particular on the deep approach. However, those studies did not show univocal results. Researchers investigating this topic have given possible explanations for their results, hereby offering suggestions for which factors can encourage or discourage the adoption of a deep approach in student-centred learning environments. Therefore, the first goal of this review is to identify those suggested encouraging and discouraging factors. After the identification of these factors, a second literature search will be done to investigate the nature of the relationship between the suggested encouraging and discouraging factors and students’ approaches to learning. In this second part of the review, research studies that have empirically investigated the relationship between the suggested factor and students’ approaches to learning will be selected, independent of the learning environment in which the study took place. As a consequence, the research questions addressed in this review study are:
虽然关于以学生为中心的学习究竟是什么存在很多混淆（Lea, Stephenson, & Troy, 2003），并且在实践中它可以采取许多不同的教学形式，如上所示，但这些教学方法的一个反复出现的目标是促进深度学习和理解（Hannafin et al., 1997; Lea et al., 2003; Mayer, 2004），这可以通过深度学习方法来表达。在过去的十年中，ASI 和 SPQ 及其改编版本被用来研究以学生为中心的学习环境对学习方法的影响，特别是对深度学习方法的影响。然而，这些研究并没有显示出明确的结果。研究这个主题的学者们对他们的结果给出了可能的解释，并提供了建议，指出哪些因素可以鼓励或阻碍在以学生为中心的学习环境中采用深度学习方法。因此，本次评审的第一个目标是识别这些建议的鼓励和阻碍因素。 在识别这些因素后，将进行第二次文献搜索，以调查建议的鼓励和抑制因素与学生学习方式之间关系的性质。在审查的第二部分，将选择那些实证研究了建议因素与学生学习方式之间关系的研究，独立于研究进行的学习环境。因此，本次综述研究所涉及的研究问题是：

To answer the first research question, studies that investigated the influence of student-centred learning environments on students’ approaches to learning were explored in order to identify encouraging and discouraging factors. Search terms were “approach(es) to learning” and “learning approach(es)” combined with key words that referred to, or were examples of, student-centred learning environments: “student-cent(e)red learning”, “student-cent(e)red teaching”, “active learning”, “constructivist learning”, “student-activating”, “problem-based learning”, “powerful learning environment”, “minimal guidance”, “discovery learning”, “open-ended learning environment”, “collaborative learning”, “cooperative learning”, “project-based learning”, and “case-based learning”. Only studies in which the teaching methods made use of the core of student-centred teaching, i.e. emphasising student responsibility and activity in learning (Cannon & Newble, 2000) and a coaching role of the teacher (Dochy et al., 2002), were retrieved. Factors encouraging or discouraging a deep approach to learning were searched for in the conclusion, discussion, summary and limitations part of the retrieved articles.
为了回答第一个研究问题，探讨了研究以学生为中心的学习环境对学生学习方式影响的研究，以识别促进和抑制因素。搜索词为“学习方式”和“学习方法”，结合了与以学生为中心的学习环境相关的关键词或示例：“以学生为中心的学习”、“以学生为中心的教学”、“主动学习”、“建构主义学习”、“学生激活”、“基于问题的学习”、“强有力的学习环境”、“最小指导”、“发现学习”、“开放式学习环境”、“协作学习”、“合作学习”、“基于项目的学习”和“基于案例的学习”。仅检索那些教学方法利用以学生为中心的教学核心，即强调学生在学习中的责任和活动（Cannon & Newble, 2000）以及教师的辅导角色（Dochy et al., 2002）的研究。在检索到的文章的结论、讨论、摘要和局限性部分中搜索促进或抑制深度学习方式的因素。

In order to answer the second research question, the relationships between the encouraging and discouraging factors and students’ approaches to learning were investigated in-depth by searching literature concerning these relationships.
为了回答第二个研究问题，深入调查了鼓励因素和抑制因素与学生学习方式之间的关系，查阅了有关这些关系的文献。

Therefore, the search terms “approach(es) to learning” and “learning approach(es)” were combined with the specific variables/factors (see below, e.g. “workload”, “assessment”, etc.) which were found as an answer to the first research question.
因此，搜索词“学习方法”和“学习途径”与特定变量/因素（见下文，例如“工作量”、“评估”等）结合在一起，这些变量/因素被认为是第一个研究问题的答案。

This literature search was conducted by means of the electronic search platform LibriSource+, which made it possible to search several electronic databases simultaneously. Four databases were included in the search: Eric (CSA + USDE), PsycInfo (OvidSP), Web of Science and FRANCIS. The literature for the narrative analysis (Dochy, Segers, & Buehl, 1999) was selected, based on several criteria for inclusion, by reading the abstracts of the studies: (1) the studies had to address higher education students’ approaches to learning consisting of the intention of the student when starting a task and the learning strategies used to carry out a task; (2) the studies had to measure approaches to learning by means of questionnaires based on ASI and SPQ; (3) the retrieved studies had to be published after 2000 for the first research question and after 1990 for the second research question; (4) studies had to concern the learning approaches of students without (learning) disabilities; and (5) studies regarding the relationship between encouraging and discouraging factors on the one hand, and approaches to learning on the other hand, had to indicate clear relationships between these variables, so that the significant effect (or explained variance) could be attributed to a clearly defined variable. As a result, 25 articles were retrieved regarding the first research question. Based on these 25 articles encouraging and discouraging factors were identified. To answer the second research question, 93 articles were selected. Those 93 articles investigated the nature of the relationship between these encouraging and discouraging factors and approaches to learning.
这项文献检索是通过电子检索平台 LibriSource+进行的，该平台使得可以同时搜索多个电子数据库。检索中包括了四个数据库：Eric (CSA + USDE)、PsycInfo (OvidSP)、Web of Science 和 FRANCIS。 叙事分析的文献（Dochy, Segers, & Buehl, 1999）是根据几个纳入标准，通过阅读研究摘要进行选择的：（1）研究必须涉及高等教育学生的学习方式，包括学生在开始任务时的意图和用于完成任务的学习策略；（2）研究必须通过基于 ASI 和 SPQ 的问卷来测量学习方式；（3）检索到的研究必须在 2000 年之后发表以回答第一个研究问题，在 1990 年之后发表以回答第二个研究问题；（4）研究必须涉及没有（学习）障碍的学生的学习方式；（5）关于鼓励和抑制因素之间关系的研究，必须明确指出这些变量之间的关系，以便将显著效应（或解释方差）归因于明确定义的变量。因此，针对第一个研究问题检索到 25 篇文章。基于这 25 篇文章，识别出鼓励和抑制因素。 为了回答第二个研究问题，选择了 93 篇文章。这 93 篇文章研究了这些鼓励和抑制因素与学习方法之间关系的性质。

3.1. Which factors encourage or discourage the adoption of deep approaches to learning in a student-centred learning environment?
3.1. 哪些因素会促进或阻碍在以学生为中心的学习环境中采用深度学习方法？

The results of the studies addressing the effects of student-centred learning environments on students’ approaches to learning were not univocal. Several studies using pre- and post-test measures of approaches to learning, before and after experiencing student-centred teaching methods, confirmed the hypothesis that these teaching methods deepened students’ learning approaches (Gordon & Debus, 2002; Sivan, Wong Leung, Woon, & Kember, 2000; Tiwari et al., 2006; Waters & Johnston, 2004), whereas other studies showed a significant increase in the use of surface approaches (Baeten, Dochy, & Struyven, 2008; Gijbels, Coertjens, Vanthournout, Struyf, & Van Petegem, 2009; Gijbels & Dochy, 2006; Gijbels, Segers, & Struyf, 2008; Papinczak, Young, Groves, & Haynes, 2008; Struyven et al., 2006) or surface learning strategies (Nijhuis et al., 2005; Segers, Nijhuis, & Gijselaers, 2006), and a decrease in the use of deep approaches (Groves, 2005; Papinczak et al., 2008; Reid, Duvall, & Evans, 2005; Struyven et al., 2006) or deep learning strategies (Nijhuis et al., 2005; Segers et al., 2006). Balasooriya, Hughes, and Toohey (2009) and Balasooriya, Toohey, and Hughes (2009) found that while some students adopted deeper approaches, a notable proportion of the students adopted more surface approaches or showed minimal changes in their approaches. Chung and Chow (2004), Herington and Weaven (2008), McParland, Noble, and Livingston (2004), and Wong and Lam (2007) did not find any significant difference between pre- and post-test measures of students’ deep and surface approaches in a student-centred learning environment.
关于以学生为中心的学习环境对学生学习方式影响的研究结果并不一致。几项使用学习方式的前后测试测量的研究，在经历以学生为中心的教学方法之前和之后，证实了这些教学方法加深了学生学习方式的假设（Gordon & Debus, 2002；Sivan, Wong Leung, Woon, & Kember, 2000；Tiwari et al., 2006；Waters & Johnston, 2004），而其他研究则显示表面学习方式的使用显著增加（Baeten, Dochy, & Struyven, 2008；Gijbels, Coertjens, Vanthournout, Struyf, & Van Petegem, 2009；Gijbels & Dochy, 2006；Gijbels, Segers, & Struyf, 2008；Papinczak, Young, Groves, & Haynes, 2008；Struyven et al., 2006）或表面学习策略（Nijhuis et al., 2005；Segers, Nijhuis, & Gijselaers, 2006），以及深度学习方式的使用减少（Groves, 2005；Papinczak et al., 2008；Reid, Duvall, & Evans, 2005；Struyven et al., 2006）或深度学习策略（Nijhuis et al., 2005；Segers et al., 2006）。 Balasooriya, Hughes, and Toohey (2009) 和 Balasooriya, Toohey, 和 Hughes (2009) 发现，虽然一些学生采用了更深层次的学习方法，但相当一部分学生采用了更表层的学习方法或在其学习方法上表现出最小的变化。Chung 和 Chow (2004)、Herington 和 Weaven (2008)、McParland、Noble 和 Livingston (2004) 以及 Wong 和 Lam (2007) 在以学生为中心的学习环境中没有发现学生深层和表层学习方法的前测和后测之间存在显著差异。

A number of studies compared two or more learning environments that differed in the degree of student-centredness. While some studies emphasised the surplus value of student-centred teaching methods for fostering deep approaches (Richardson, Dawson, Sadlo, Jenkins, & McInnes, 2007; Tetik, Gurpinar, & Bat, 2009; Wilson & Fowler, 2005), other studies found the opposite, i.e. more surface approaches in student-centred learning environments (Nijhuis et al., 2005; Segers et al., 2006). McParland et al. (2004) on the other hand did not find any significant difference in students’ approaches when comparing problem-based learning to traditional lectures. Finally, research using only post-test measures of approaches to learning at the end of a problem-based learning experience (Gijbels, van de Watering, Dochy, & Van den Bossche, 2005; Schultz & Christensen, 2004) showed that students had higher scores for the deep approach than for the surface approach to learning.
一些研究比较了两种或多种学习环境，这些环境在以学生为中心的程度上有所不同。虽然一些研究强调以学生为中心的教学方法在促进深度学习方法方面的附加价值（Richardson, Dawson, Sadlo, Jenkins, & McInnes, 2007；Tetik, Gurpinar, & Bat, 2009；Wilson & Fowler, 2005），但其他研究发现了相反的结果，即在以学生为中心的学习环境中更多的是表层学习方法（Nijhuis et al., 2005；Segers et al., 2006）。另一方面，McParland et al.（2004）在比较基于问题的学习与传统讲座时没有发现学生学习方法的显著差异。最后，仅使用基于问题的学习体验结束时的学习方法后测量的研究（Gijbels, van de Watering, Dochy, & Van den Bossche, 2005；Schultz & Christensen, 2004）显示，学生在深度学习方法上的得分高于表层学习方法。

These mixed findings make clear that influencing students’ approaches towards deep learning by means of implementing student-centred learning environments is a complex process. Numerous other factors that encourage or discourage the adoption of a deep approach may be of influence. In the 25 retrieved articles, the authors tried to explain their results by indicating encouraging and discouraging factors, based on literature, previous empiric research, interviews with students and their own ideas. The overview of these factors is presented in Fig. 1. For the clarity of the figure, references are left out and are included in Appendix A. As is made clear in Fig. 1, encouraging and discouraging factors are situated in the context and students’ perceptions of that context, but also in characteristics of the students themselves.
这些混合的发现清楚地表明，通过实施以学生为中心的学习环境来影响学生的深度学习方法是一个复杂的过程。许多其他因素可能会影响深度学习方法的采用，既有鼓励因素，也有阻碍因素。在 25 篇检索到的文章中，作者试图通过基于文献、先前的实证研究、与学生的访谈以及他们自己的想法来解释他们的结果。图 1 中展示了这些因素的概述。为了图表的清晰，参考文献被省略，并包含在附录 A 中。正如图 1 所示，鼓励和阻碍因素位于上下文及学生对该上下文的感知中，同时也与学生自身的特征有关。

To investigate the nature of the relationships between encouraging and discouraging factors (see Fig. 1) and students’ approaches to learning, 93 articles were retrieved from our literature search. In Appendix A, references of these articles are grouped by factor. Next, the results concerning contextual factors, perceived contextual factors, and student factors are presented separately.
为了研究鼓励和抑制因素（见图 1）与学生学习方式之间的关系，从我们的文献搜索中检索了 93 篇文章。在附录 A 中，这些文章的参考文献按因素分组。接下来，关于情境因素、感知情境因素和学生因素的结果将分别呈现。

Fig. 1. Overview of encouraging and discouraging factors.
图 1. 鼓励和抑制因素的概述。

Different encouraging and discouraging factors were identified in the context in which the student learns. However, only the influence of five of these contextual factors (assessment, feedback, teacher, interactivity, and discipline) on students’ approaches to learning was empirically investigated in the studies retrieved in our literature search.
在学生学习的背景中，识别出了不同的鼓励和阻碍因素。然而，在我们文献检索中获得的研究中，仅对这五个背景因素（评估、反馈、教师、互动和纪律）对学生学习方式的影响进行了实证研究。

Concerning assessment, three studies were retrieved measuring approaches to learning at the start and the end of a course in which students were assessed by means of formative group assignments (Gijbels & Dochy, 2006), portfolio assessment (Baeten et al., 2008; Struyven et al., 2006), multiple choice examination, case-based evaluation and peer-assessment (Struyven et al., 2006). These assessment modes - with the exception of the multiple choice examination - suited the innovative assessment culture (Birenbaum, 1996) that intended to enhance students’ deep approaches to learning (Dochy & Moerkerke, 1997; Gielen, Dochy, & Dierick, 2003). However, a significant increase in terms of surface approaches to learning was found in these studies. Also the multiple choice examination did not increase students’ adoption of deep approaches. Instead, the surface approach to learning increased significantly, however, only when used in combination with studentactivating teaching methods. When used in a lecture-based setting, no significant differences were found between surface approaches to learning at the start and the end of the course (Struyven et al., 2006).
关于评估，检索到三项研究测量了课程开始和结束时的学习方法，学生通过形成性小组作业（Gijbels & Dochy, 2006）、作品集评估（Baeten et al., 2008；Struyven et al., 2006）、多项选择考试、案例评估和同伴评估（Struyven et al., 2006）进行评估。这些评估模式——除了多项选择考试——适合旨在增强学生深度学习方法的创新评估文化（Birenbaum, 1996）（Dochy & Moerkerke, 1997；Gielen, Dochy, & Dierick, 2003）。然而，这些研究发现表面学习方法显著增加。此外，多项选择考试并未增加学生采用深度学习方法的比例。相反，表面学习方法显著增加，但仅在与激活学生的教学方法结合使用时。当在以讲座为基础的环境中使用时，课程开始和结束时的表面学习方法之间没有显著差异（Struyven et al., 2006）。

Furthermore, two studies used one single measure of approaches to learning to investigate the effects of different assessment modes on students’ learning. In this way, Smith and Miller (2005) asked students how they would approach their learning if expecting a multiple choice examination or an essay, but they did not find any significant effect of assessment type on students’ learning. Kwok and Ma (1999) studied students’ approaches in a collaborative assessment setting, in which both teachers and students participated in the assessment process. In particular, they investigated whether a difference could be found between students who received feedback through an internet-based group support system and students who received this feedback face to face. It proved to be that the deep approach of the former group was significantly higher than that of the latter group.
此外，两项研究使用了单一的学习方式测量来调查不同评估模式对学生学习的影响。通过这种方式，Smith 和 Miller（2005）询问学生如果预期参加选择题考试或写作业，他们将如何进行学习，但没有发现评估类型对学生学习的显著影响。Kwok 和 Ma（1999）研究了学生在协作评估环境中的学习方式，在这种环境中，教师和学生都参与评估过程。特别是，他们调查了通过基于互联网的群体支持系统获得反馈的学生与面对面获得反馈的学生之间是否存在差异。结果证明，前者的深度学习方式显著高于后者。

The effects of different kinds of feedback on students’ approaches to learning were also examined in the study of Gijbels et al. (2009). They executed a two-year study in which they manipulated the nature and amount of feedback in two cohorts. While cohort 1 received only oral teacher- and peer-feedback on their presentations of two authentic group assignments, cohort 2 received written peer-feedback which was used in a formative way. As a consequence, cohort 2 could revise their assignments afterwards in view of their summative assessment. However, receiving additional feedback in cohort 2 did not explain deep and surface approaches to learning over and above their initial deep and surface approaches and student characteristics.
在 Gijbels 等人（2009）的研究中，还考察了不同类型的反馈对学生学习方法的影响。他们进行了为期两年的研究，在两个组别中操控反馈的性质和数量。第一组仅接受了口头教师和同伴的反馈，针对他们的两个真实小组作业的展示，而第二组则收到了以形成性方式使用的书面同伴反馈。因此，第二组可以在总结性评估的基础上对他们的作业进行修订。然而，第二组收到的额外反馈并没有解释其深度和表面学习方法，超出他们最初的深度和表面学习方法以及学生特征。

Besides assessment and feedback, the teacher is mentioned as contextual factor too. Factor and cluster analysis on the relationship between teachers’ approaches to teaching and students’ approaches to learning indicated that students of teachers who reported adopting approaches to teaching that were more oriented towards students and to changing students’ conceptions, reported adopting significantly deeper approaches to learning. Conversely, in the classes where teachers
除了评估和反馈，教师也被提及为一个背景因素。对教师教学方法与学生学习方法之间关系的因素和聚类分析表明，报告采用更以学生为导向和改变学生观念的教学方法的教师的学生，报告采用了显著更深层次的学习方法。相反，在教师
described their approach to teaching as having a focus on what they do and on transmitting knowledge, students were more likely to report the adoption of a surface approach to learning (Trigwell, Prosser, & Waterhouse, 1999). Also the amount of involvement and presence of the teacher seems to matter, as was indicated by Garrison and Cleveland-Innes (2005). They investigated students’ approaches to learning in four courses that differed in the amount of teacher involvement in online conferencing, and they concluded that teacher involvement contributed to the adoption of deep approaches to learning. Nevertheless, they acknowledged the importance of the content and task demands which should require processes such as critical discourse, reflection and thought in order to attain a deeper approach to learning.
他们将教学方法描述为专注于他们所做的事情和知识的传递，学生更有可能报告采用表层学习方法（Trigwell, Prosser, & Waterhouse, 1999）。此外，教师的参与程度和存在感似乎也很重要，正如 Garrison 和 Cleveland-Innes（2005）所指出的。他们调查了四门课程中学生的学习方法，这些课程在在线会议中教师的参与程度上有所不同，他们得出结论，教师的参与有助于采用深层学习方法。然而，他们承认内容和任务要求的重要性，这些要求应该需要诸如批判性话语、反思和思考等过程，以实现更深层次的学习方法。

As a part of the teaching approach, Booth and James (2001) focused on the interactivity in lectures. They investigated whether students’ deep approaches improved in an interactive lecture where the teacher posed questions to the students at appropriate points in time. After having thought about these questions in silence, students discussed the solution together with a partner. Afterwards one student was selected by the teacher to answer. Despite the increased interactivity in the lecture, students’ deep approaches to learning did not increase.
作为教学方法的一部分，Booth 和 James (2001) 关注了讲座中的互动性。他们调查了在教师在适当的时机向学生提出问题的互动讲座中，学生的深度学习方法是否有所改善。在静默思考这些问题后，学生与伙伴一起讨论解决方案。之后，教师选择一名学生回答。尽管讲座中的互动性增加，但学生的深度学习方法并没有提高。

Not only didactic elements in the course but also the content and subject of the course, or broader the discipline or area of study, influence students’ approaches to learning. Several studies were in favour of human sciences, in particular arts, social sciences, psychology, language/literature, health, politics and philosophy. As such, Kember, Leung, and McNaught (2008) concluded that the nature of the typical teaching and learning environment in the arts and social sciences was more conducive to students cultivating a deep approach than that in science and economics. The results of Lawless and Richardson (2002) were analogous. Students taking courses in arts subjects scored significantly higher on deep approach than students taking courses in science subjects, even when controlled for workload. When comparing psychology and business students, Smith and Miller (2005) found a significantly higher deep approach in the group of psychology students. With regard to language and health disciplines, Yin (1999) found a significantly higher deep approach in these disciplines compared to construction and engineering disciplines. A final study indicating the surplus value of human sciences in stimulating the adoption of a deep approach is the one of Eley (1992), who showed that students studying English literature, politics and philosophy scored higher on the deep approach than students in (bio)chemistry, microbiology, mathematics, statistics and accounting and business courses. Valk and Marandi (2005) on the other hand found that students from the faculties of biology, geography, physics and chemistry had the deepest approaches to learning compared to students from faculties of math, informatics, social sciences, philosophy, education, economics and law.
不仅课程中的教学元素，而且课程的内容和主题，或者更广泛的学科或研究领域，都会影响学生的学习方式。几项研究支持人文学科，特别是艺术、社会科学、心理学、语言/文学、健康、政治和哲学。因此，Kember、Leung 和 McNaught（2008）得出结论，艺术和社会科学中典型的教学和学习环境更有利于学生培养深度学习方法，而科学和经济学则不然。Lawless 和 Richardson（2002）的结果也是类似的。修读艺术科目的学生在深度学习方法上的得分显著高于修读科学科目的学生，即使在工作量控制的情况下也是如此。在比较心理学和商业学生时，Smith 和 Miller（2005）发现心理学学生组的深度学习方法显著更高。关于语言和健康学科，Yin（1999）发现这些学科的深度学习方法显著高于建筑和工程学科。 一项最终研究表明人文学科在促进深度学习方法采纳方面的剩余价值是 Eley（1992）的研究，他显示学习英语文学、政治和哲学的学生在深度学习方法上的得分高于学习（生）化学、微生物学、数学、统计学以及会计和商业课程的学生。另一方面，Valk 和 Marandi（2005）发现生物、地理、物理和化学学院的学生在学习上采用了最深的学习方法，相比之下，数学、信息学、社会科学、哲学、教育、经济学和法律学院的学生则较浅。

Although the direction of the differences in the abovementioned studies is not univocal, it can be concluded that discipline seems to matter in the adoption of deep approaches to learning. Nevertheless, some studies did not find any significant differences between disciplines, e.g. Edmunds and Richardson (2009) could not differentiate between sociology, biosciences, and business students’ approaches to learning, and Watkins and Regmi (1990) came to the same conclusions for humanities, science and management students.
尽管上述研究中差异的方向并不明确，但可以得出结论，学科似乎在采用深度学习方法中起着重要作用。然而，一些研究没有发现学科之间的显著差异，例如，Edmunds 和 Richardson（2009）无法区分社会学、生物科学和商科学生的学习方法，而 Watkins 和 Regmi（1990）对人文学科、科学和管理学科的学生得出了相同的结论。

It has often been stated that it is not the learning environment in itself that influences learning, but the way students perceive it (Entwistle, 1991; Zeegers, 2001). Students will always interpret instructional interventions and this interpretation triggers the effects of the learning environment (Elen & Lowyck, 2000). As a consequence, a considerable amount of research has concentrated on students’ perceptions. Workload, teaching, supportiveness, clarity of goals, usefulness of course book, independent study, relevance to professional practice and assessment have been empirically investigated in relation to students’ approaches to learning. The results of these studies are discussed next.
人们常常指出，影响学习的并不是学习环境本身，而是学生对其的感知（Entwistle, 1991; Zeegers, 2001）。学生总是会对教学干预进行解读，而这种解读会触发学习环境的效果（Elen & Lowyck, 2000）。因此，大量研究集中在学生的感知上。工作量、教学、支持性、目标的清晰度、教材的实用性、独立学习、与专业实践的相关性以及评估等方面已在与学生学习方式的关系中进行了实证研究。接下来将讨论这些研究的结果。

The workload of a learning environment is an important factor which has an influence on approaches to learning. Because of the difficulty of determining the true objective workload, research has mostly measured students’ perceptions of the workload. Earlier research sometimes used ‘hours of work or study’ as a measurement of workload, but Kember (2004) stated that this was not a good measurement of workload because time is merely a component of what shapes the perceived workload of a student. Research results on the relationship between perceived workload and approaches to learning are quite univocal, except for the study of Karagiannopoulou and Christodoulides (2005) who did not find any significant relationship. Besides this study, many researchers have showed that an excessive perceived or inappropriate workload is positively associated at a significant level with a surface approach (Crawford, Gordon, Nicholas, & Prosser, 1998; Diseth, 2007a, 2007b; Diseth, Pallesen, Hovland, & Larsen, 2006; Entwistle & Tait, 1990; Kember, 2004; Kember & Leung, 1998; Kember, Ng, Pomfret, Tse, & Wong, 1996; Lawless & Richardson, 2002; Lizzio, Wilson, & Simons, 2002; Wilson, Lizzio, & Ramsden, 1997) and significantly negative with a deep approach to learning (Cope & Staehr, 2005; Crawford et al., 1998; Diseth, 2007a, 2007b; Diseth et al., 2006; Kember et al., 1996; Wilson et al., 1997). Svirko and Mellanby (2008) did not investigate perceived workload in general, but focused on information load and came to similar results, i.e. students who perceived an overload of information scored higher on the surface and lower on the deep approach. Kember (2004) offered a possible explanation for these findings concerning perceived workload, in that he stated that students resort to short cuts and undesirable study approaches, i.e. the surface approach, to cope with the perceived excessive demands.
学习环境的工作负荷是影响学习方法的重要因素。由于确定真实的客观工作负荷的困难，研究主要测量学生对工作负荷的感知。早期的研究有时使用“工作或学习的小时数”作为工作负荷的测量，但 Kember（2004）指出，这并不是一个好的工作负荷测量，因为时间仅仅是塑造学生感知工作负荷的一个组成部分。关于感知工作负荷与学习方法之间关系的研究结果相当一致，除了 Karagiannopoulou 和 Christodoulides（2005）的研究，他们没有发现任何显著的关系。 除了这项研究，许多研究者已经表明，过度的感知或不适当的工作负荷与表面学习方法在显著水平上呈正相关（Crawford, Gordon, Nicholas, & Prosser, 1998; Diseth, 2007a, 2007b; Diseth, Pallesen, Hovland, & Larsen, 2006; Entwistle & Tait, 1990; Kember, 2004; Kember & Leung, 1998; Kember, Ng, Pomfret, Tse, & Wong, 1996; Lawless & Richardson, 2002; Lizzio, Wilson, & Simons, 2002; Wilson, Lizzio, & Ramsden, 1997），而与深度学习方法呈显著负相关（Cope & Staehr, 2005; Crawford et al., 1998; Diseth, 2007a, 2007b; Diseth et al., 2006; Kember et al., 1996; Wilson et al., 1997）。Svirko 和 Mellanby（2008）没有一般性地研究感知工作负荷，而是专注于信息负荷，并得出了类似的结果，即感知信息过载的学生在表面学习方法上的得分较高，而在深度学习方法上的得分较低。Kember（2004）对这些关于感知工作负荷的发现提供了一个可能的解释，他指出学生为了应对感知到的过高要求，采用了捷径和不理想的学习方法，即表面学习方法。

Next to workload, the way in which students perceive teaching is also of influence on the way they learn. If they perceive the teaching as ‘good’, students are more inclined towards using a deep approach and less towards using a surface approach (Crawford et al., 1998; Diseth et al., 2006; Entwistle & Tait, 1990; Lawless & Richardson, 2002; Trigwell & Prosser, 1991a; Wilson et al., 1997). Diseth (2007b) found a similar but indirect effect of perceived teaching quality (presentation,
除了工作量，学生对教学的感知方式也会影响他们的学习方式。如果他们认为教学是“好的”，学生更倾向于采用深度学习方法，而不太倾向于采用表层学习方法（Crawford et al., 1998; Diseth et al., 2006; Entwistle & Tait, 1990; Lawless & Richardson, 2002; Trigwell & Prosser, 1991a; Wilson et al., 1997）。Diseth（2007b）发现感知教学质量（呈现方式）有类似但间接的影响。
integration and lecturer characteristics) on students’ approaches via the perceived effect of the teaching (challenge, overall value and stimulation of interest). While the former studies related good teaching to a deep approach, Pimparyon, Roff, McAleer, Poonchai, and Pemba (2000) found positive correlations between perceptions of teaching and both deep and surface approach. In contrast to general teaching quality, Leung, $\mathrm{Lu},\mathrm{Chen}$$\mathrm{Lu},\mathrm{Chen}$Lu,Chen\mathrm{Lu}, \mathrm{Chen}, and Lu (2008) studied four qualitatively different teaching approaches, i.e. the transferring, shaping, travelling and growing teaching approach. While the former two are teacher-centred and focus on a one-way process of transferring knowledge to or shaping of students, the latter two are student-centred and consider the student with his own experiences as a fellow traveller whose learning process is facilitated by the teacher. Perceived teacher-centred teaching approaches were found to be mainly positively related to a surface approach, while perceived student-centred teaching approaches were found to be mainly positively correlated to a deep approach. In addition, the surface strategy was found to be related to the traveling teaching approach, while the deep strategy was found to be related to the shaping teaching approach. Valk and Marandi (2005) investigated students’ perceptions of concrete teaching behaviours and found that answering students’ questions, giving feedback, structuring the course, providing materials and illustrating lectures were significantly positively correlated with a deep approach, whereas a surface approach was significantly negatively related to the teaching strategy of structuring the course. Surprisingly, no correlation was found between a deep approach and teaching activities that encouraged students’ active participation, e.g. the teacher gave group tasks and projects to students. Concerning the perceived supportiveness of the context, Eley (1992) indicated that perceived teaching support, i.e. giving general support and encouragement for a student’s learning, was related to a deep approach. Furthermore, the degree to which the teacher was perceived to have made goals and standards clear throughout the course was positively related to a deep approach and negatively to a surface approach (Crawford et al., 1998; Eley, 1992; Lawless & Richardson, 2002; Nijhuis et al., 2005; Trigwell & Prosser, 1991a; Wilson et al., 1997). The same relationships were found concerning perceived independent study (Crawford et al., 1998; Eley, 1992; Lawless & Richardson, 2002; Trigwell & Prosser, 1991a; Valk & Marandi, 2005; Wilson et al., 1997). Also the usefulness of the course book (e.g. more straightforward and clear cut, and less conceptual, less holistic and less cross-disciplinary) is an influencing factor in stimulating students towards deep learning (Nijhuis et al., 2005). In addition, the more students perceived the course as relevant to their professional practice, the stronger their deep approach to learning was (Entwistle & Tait, 1990).
整合和讲师特征）对学生学习方式的影响通过教学的感知效果（挑战、整体价值和兴趣激发）。虽然前面的研究将良好的教学与深度学习方式相关联，但 Pimparyon、Roff、McAleer、Poonchai 和 Pemba（2000）发现教学感知与深度和表层学习方式之间存在正相关。与一般教学质量相对，Leung、 $\mathrm{Lu},\mathrm{Chen}$$\mathrm{Lu},\mathrm{Chen}$Lu,Chen\mathrm{Lu}, \mathrm{Chen} 和 Lu（2008）研究了四种质不同的教学方法，即传递、塑造、旅行和成长教学方法。前两种是以教师为中心，专注于将知识传递给学生或塑造学生的单向过程，而后两种是以学生为中心，考虑学生自身的经验，视其为学习过程中的同行旅行者，教师则促进其学习过程。感知的以教师为中心的教学方法主要与表层学习方式呈正相关，而感知的以学生为中心的教学方法主要与深度学习方式呈正相关。 此外，表层策略与旅行教学方法相关，而深层策略与塑造教学方法相关。Valk 和 Marandi（2005）调查了学生对具体教学行为的看法，发现回答学生问题、给予反馈、结构化课程、提供材料和讲解讲座与深层学习方法显著正相关，而表层学习方法与课程结构化的教学策略显著负相关。令人惊讶的是，深层学习方法与鼓励学生积极参与的教学活动之间没有发现相关性，例如教师给学生分配小组任务和项目。关于环境的支持感，Eley（1992）指出，感知的教学支持，即对学生学习给予一般支持和鼓励，与深层学习方法相关。 此外，教师在整个课程中被认为明确了目标和标准的程度与深度学习方法呈正相关，而与表层学习方法呈负相关（Crawford et al., 1998; Eley, 1992; Lawless & Richardson, 2002; Nijhuis et al., 2005; Trigwell & Prosser, 1991a; Wilson et al., 1997）。关于感知的独立学习也发现了相同的关系（Crawford et al., 1998; Eley, 1992; Lawless & Richardson, 2002; Trigwell & Prosser, 1991a; Valk & Marandi, 2005; Wilson et al., 1997）。此外，课程书籍的实用性（例如，更直接和清晰，概念性较少，整体性较少，跨学科性较少）是刺激学生进行深度学习的一个影响因素（Nijhuis et al., 2005）。此外，学生越是认为课程与他们的专业实践相关，他们的深度学习方法就越强（Entwistle & Tait, 1990）。

While there is a large amount of studies investigating the relationship between students’ approaches to learning and their learning outcomes (e.g. Minbashian, Huon, & Bird, 2004; Trigwell & Prosser, 1991b), fewer studies addressed the reverse relationship, i.e. the pre-assessment or backwash effect of assessment on learning, according to which the student anticipates the perceived assessment requirements and as a consequence changes his approach to learning to meet these requirements (Gielen et al., 2003). Therefore, perceptions of the assessment modes are considered to be important to take into account in research on approaches to learning. Students who perceive the assessment demands on a deep level, as assessing higher levels of cognitive processing, are found to employ deep approaches (Scouller, 1998) or deep learning strategies (Segers et al., 2006), whereas students who perceive the assessment as assessing lower, knowledge-based levels of intellectual processing or aiming at rote recall, tend to employ surface approaches (Scouller, 1998; Trigwell & Prosser, 1991a) or surface strategies (Segers et al., 2006). In Segers et al. (2006), the relationship between perceptions of assessment and approaches to learning occurred irrespective of the assessment mode that was used (knowledge reproduction questions versus case-based assessment, i.e. mainly knowledge application questions), indicating that students who intended to adopt a deep or surface learning strategy perceived the assessment demands accordingly and, as a result, employed a related learning strategy. Scouller (1998), on the other hand, found different perceptions of the assessment modes, with the assignment essay being perceived as assessing higher levels of intellectual processing compared to a multiple choice examination. Segers, Martens, and Van den Bossche (2008) found that it was primarily the perceptions of the case-based assessment demands on a deep level that influenced students’ learning approaches: they had a positive effect on the use of deep approaches and a negative effect on the employment of surface learning approaches. Gijbels et al. (2008) found that only changes in the perceptions of assessment towards less surface levels were significantly related to changes in approaches to learning, but surprisingly to a more surface approach.
虽然有大量研究调查学生学习方式与学习成果之间的关系（例如，Minbashian, Huon, & Bird, 2004；Trigwell & Prosser, 1991b），但较少有研究关注反向关系，即评估对学习的前期评估或反冲效应，根据这一效应，学生预期感知的评估要求，因此改变其学习方式以满足这些要求（Gielen et al., 2003）。因此，评估模式的感知被认为在学习方式研究中是重要的考虑因素。那些在深层次上感知评估要求的学生，认为评估的是更高层次的认知处理，发现他们采用深层学习方式（Scouller, 1998）或深层学习策略（Segers et al., 2006），而那些将评估视为评估较低的、基于知识的智力处理或旨在死记硬背的学生，则倾向于采用表层学习方式（Scouller, 1998；Trigwell & Prosser, 1991a）或表层策略（Segers et al., 2006）。在 Segers 等人 （2006），对评估的感知与学习方法之间的关系发生在所使用的评估模式无关（知识再现问题与案例评估，即主要是知识应用问题），这表明，打算采用深度或表层学习策略的学生相应地感知了评估要求，因此采用了相关的学习策略。另一方面，Scouller（1998）发现对评估模式的感知存在差异，作业论文被认为评估了比多项选择考试更高水平的智力处理。Segers、Martens 和 Van den Bossche（2008）发现，主要是对案例评估要求的深层次感知影响了学生的学习方法：它们对深度方法的使用产生了积极影响，而对表层学习方法的使用产生了消极影响。Gijbels 等（2008）发现，只有对评估的感知向较少表层水平的变化与学习方法的变化显著相关，但令人惊讶的是，这与更表层的方法相关。

Besides looking at the perceived level of the assessment demands (deep versus surface), previous research also focused on the perceived appropriateness and other characteristics of assessment. Concerning the appropriateness of assessment, research results showed a negative relationship between perceived inappropriate assessment and a deep approach. The reverse relationship was found for the surface approach (Crawford et al., 1998; Lawless & Richardson, 2002; Trigwell & Prosser, 1991a; Wilson et al., 1997). Gulikers, Kester, Kirschner, and Bastiaens (2008) proved that students who perceived the assessment as being more authentic and more resembling their future professional practice, employed deeper learning than students who perceived the assessment as being less authentic. Furthermore, the study of Segers, Gijbels, and Thurlings (2008) showed through correlational analyses that students who perceived the portfolio assessment as stimulating their learning and being motivating and who reported to use the feedback they received on the portfolio assessment were more inclined to use a deep approach. The reverse pattern was found with the surface approach. Moreover, students who were more negative about the quantity, timing and quality of the feedback, showed a stronger surface approach.
除了关注评估要求的感知水平（深度与表面），以往的研究还关注了评估的适当性和其他特征。关于评估的适当性，研究结果显示感知不适当的评估与深度学习方法之间存在负相关关系。表面学习方法则发现了相反的关系（Crawford et al., 1998; Lawless & Richardson, 2002; Trigwell & Prosser, 1991a; Wilson et al., 1997）。Gulikers, Kester, Kirschner 和 Bastiaens（2008）证明，感知评估更真实且更接近未来职业实践的学生，采用的深度学习比感知评估不那么真实的学生更深。此外，Segers, Gijbels 和 Thurlings（2008）的研究通过相关分析显示，感知作品集评估能够激励他们学习并具有激励作用的学生，以及报告使用他们在作品集评估中获得的反馈的学生，更倾向于采用深度学习方法。表面学习方法则发现了相反的模式。 此外，对反馈的数量、时机和质量持更消极态度的学生表现出更强的表面学习方式。

While the abovementioned studies focused on specific elements of the learning environment, other studies incorporated general measures of the overall quality of the course. Results of these studies all point in the same direction, with perceptions of overall course quality being positively related to a deep approach and negatively to a surface approach (Diseth, 2007a; Diseth, Pallesen, Brunborg, & Larsen, 2010; Richardson et al., 2007).
虽然上述研究集中于学习环境的特定元素，但其他研究则纳入了课程整体质量的一般衡量标准。这些研究的结果都指向同一个方向，整体课程质量的感知与深度学习方法呈正相关，与表层学习方法呈负相关（Diseth, 2007a; Diseth, Pallesen, Brunborg, & Larsen, 2010; Richardson et al., 2007）。

Although research on the effects of student-centred learning environments tends to focus on the learning approaches of the whole group of students, a lot of encouraging and discouraging student factors were identified as an answer to research question 1, indicating the student-dependent nature of approaches to learning. Many of these student factors have been empirically investigated in relation to approaches to learning. The variables initial approach to learning, age, gender, intellectual ability and level of cognitive development, personality, previous experiences, learning habits, preferences for teaching methods, motivation, and uncertainty/low self-esteem/anxiety/failure are discussed below.
尽管关于以学生为中心的学习环境影响的研究往往集中在整个学生群体的学习方式上，但作为研究问题 1 的答案，识别出了许多鼓励和抑制学生的因素，表明学习方式的学生依赖性。许多这些学生因素已在与学习方式相关的研究中进行了实证调查。以下讨论了初始学习方式、年龄、性别、智力水平和认知发展水平、个性、以往经验、学习习惯、对教学方法的偏好、动机以及不确定性/低自尊/焦虑/失败等变量。

First of all, the learning approach which students adopt in a learning environment, whether it is student-centred or not, is influenced by their initial approach to learning at the moment of entering the learning environment, i.e. students’ deep and surface approaches in a learning environment are significantly positively predicted by respectively their initial deep and surface approaches (Crawford et al., 1998; Fox, McManus, & Winder, 2001; McParland et al., 2004). Gijbels et al. (2008) investigated the relationship between the initial approach to learning and the change in approaches to learning in a studentcentred learning environment and found that students’ lack of change in terms of a deep learning approach was significantly negatively influenced by their initial deep approach. Accordingly, students’ change in surface learning approaches was significantly negatively influenced by their initial surface approach. So, the stronger the initial deep or surface approach of students, the less they change their approach. Wilson and Fowler (2005) compared the deep approaches to learning of deep and surface learners in a conventional teacher-centred course and an action learning-based course (project work, learning groups). Their results showed that deep learners remained relatively consistent in their deep approach to learning across the two learning environments, indicating that these students were not influenced by the action learning course. Surface learners, on the other hand, reported a significantly greater use of deep learning strategies in the action learning course, but there was no corresponding increase in their motives for deep learning. These findings appear to be in contrast with the finding that students with a preference for deep approaches were more likely to recognize the learning potential of constructivist teaching strategies than were students with surface learning preferences, who tend to focus on the transmissive aspects of teaching and the reproductive aspects of learning (Campbell et al., 2001).
首先，学生在学习环境中采用的学习方法，无论是否以学生为中心，都受到他们进入学习环境时的初始学习方法的影响，即学生在学习环境中的深度和表层学习方法分别受到他们初始深度和表层学习方法的显著正向预测（Crawford et al., 1998; Fox, McManus, & Winder, 2001; McParland et al., 2004）。Gijbels et al. (2008) 研究了初始学习方法与以学生为中心的学习环境中学习方法变化之间的关系，发现学生在深度学习方法方面缺乏变化显著受到其初始深度方法的负面影响。因此，学生在表层学习方法上的变化显著受到其初始表层方法的负面影响。因此，学生的初始深度或表层方法越强，他们的学习方法变化就越少。 Wilson 和 Fowler（2005）比较了在传统以教师为中心的课程和基于行动学习的课程（项目工作、学习小组）中，深度学习者和表面学习者的深度学习方法。他们的结果显示，深度学习者在这两种学习环境中的深度学习方法保持相对一致，表明这些学生没有受到行动学习课程的影响。另一方面，表面学习者在行动学习课程中报告了显著更高的深度学习策略使用，但他们的深度学习动机没有相应增加。这些发现似乎与这样的发现相对立：偏好深度学习方法的学生比偏好表面学习的学生更有可能认识到建构主义教学策略的学习潜力，而后者往往专注于教学的传递性方面和学习的再生产方面（Campbell 等，2001）。

Students’ approaches to learning are usually measured by means of separate variables, namely the deep and surface approach. In practice, however, students combine features of both approaches which form their learning profiles (Vanthournout, Donche, Gijbels, & Van Petegem, 2009). Vanthournout et al. (2009) distinguished several subgroups of students with the same learning profile and investigated whether these subgroups evolved differently in their approaches in the same student-activating learning environment. Their results showed that the approaches to learning for the different learning profiles converged, i.e. students with a high ambivalent (=high deep/high surface) and deep approach-profile significantly decreased in their deep approach while the deep approach of students with a surface approach or fallen angels-profile (=moderate/low deep and surface) significantly increased. No significant changes in deep approach were found for students with a moderate ambivalent-profile (=moderate deep and high surface). A similar converging pattern was found for the surface approach. Leung, Mok, and Wong (2008) also distinguished several subgroups of students based on their learning profile. In a course, without specific intervention of student-centred teaching methods, they found no significant changes in deep approach for the three subgroups (high surface/low deep, intermediate, low surface/high deep). Concerning the surface approach, a significant increase was found in the low surface/high deep subgroup. In the intermediate group a significant increase was found in only one of the two study programs.
学生的学习方式通常通过深度和表面学习两种不同的变量来衡量。然而，在实践中，学生会结合这两种方法的特征，从而形成他们的学习特征（Vanthournout, Donche, Gijbels, & Van Petegem, 2009）。Vanthournout 等人（2009）区分了具有相同学习特征的几组学生，并研究了这些子组在相同的学生激活学习环境中是否以不同的方式发展他们的学习方法。他们的结果显示，不同学习特征的学习方法趋于一致，即具有高矛盾（=高深度/高表面）和深度学习特征的学生在深度学习方面显著下降，而具有表面学习或堕落天使特征（=中等/低深度和表面）的学生的深度学习显著增加。对于具有中等矛盾特征（=中等深度和高表面）的学生，深度学习没有显著变化。表面学习也发现了类似的趋同模式。 Leung, Mok, 和 Wong (2008) 还根据学生的学习特征区分了几个子群体。在一门课程中，在没有具体的以学生为中心的教学方法干预的情况下，他们发现三个子群体（高表层/低深度、中等、低表层/高深度）在深度学习方法上没有显著变化。关于表层学习方法，在低表层/高深度子群体中发现了显著增加。在中等组中，仅在两个学习项目中的一个中发现了显著增加。

Over the years, age and gender have become two important demographic variables in the research field of approaches to learning. Studies that have taken the variable age into account mainly showed that age was positively related to a deep approach and negatively to a surface approach (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2009; Christie, Cree, Hounsell, McCune, & Tett, 2006; Diseth, 2007b; Duff, 1999; Edmunds & Richardson, 2009; Furnham, Christopher, Garwood, & Martin, 2007; Gijbels et al., 2005; Groves, 2005; McParland et al., 2004; Richardson, 1995; Richardson, Morgan, & Woodley, 1999; SadlerSmith, 1996; Valk & Marandi, 2005; Zeegers, 2001, 2004; Zhang, 2003). However, some studies did not find a significant relationship between age and learning approach (Duff, Boyle, Dunleavy, & Ferguson, 2004; Mattick, Dennis, & Bligh, 2004; Papinczak et al., 2008; Tiwari et al., 2006), but they are rather exceptions.
多年来，年龄和性别已成为学习方法研究领域中两个重要的人口统计变量。考虑到年龄变量的研究主要表明，年龄与深度学习方法呈正相关，与表面学习方法呈负相关（Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2009; Christie, Cree, Hounsell, McCune, & Tett, 2006; Diseth, 2007b; Duff, 1999; Edmunds & Richardson, 2009; Furnham, Christopher, Garwood, & Martin, 2007; Gijbels et al., 2005; Groves, 2005; McParland et al., 2004; Richardson, 1995; Richardson, Morgan, & Woodley, 1999; SadlerSmith, 1996; Valk & Marandi, 2005; Zeegers, 2001, 2004; Zhang, 2003）。然而，一些研究并未发现年龄与学习方法之间的显著关系（Duff, Boyle, Dunleavy, & Ferguson, 2004; Mattick, Dennis, & Bligh, 2004; Papinczak et al., 2008; Tiwari et al., 2006），但它们相对是例外。

Concerning gender, several research studies have confirmed a relation with approach to learning. Unfortunately, the nature of the relationships differs among the studies. Some studies found that males scored higher on the surface approach than females (Berberoglu & Hei, 2003; Gijbels et al., 2005; Mattick et al., 2004; Tetik et al., 2009) but other studies found the reverse (Cantwell & Grayson, 2002; Duff, 2002; Duff et al., 2004; Furnham et al., 2007; Sadler-Smith, 1996). Concerning the deep approach, females obtained higher scores for the deep approach than males (Cantwell & Grayson, 2002; Hayes & Richardson, 1995; Tetik et al., 2009). However, Tural Dincer and Akdeniz (2008) found this effect only in the first year; in the second, third and fourth year of study this effect disappeared. Berberoglu and Hei (2003) and Sadler-Smith (1996) on the other hand found higher scores of males than females on the deep approach. The inconclusiveness on this issue is even stronger since numerous studies did not find any significant relationship between gender and approach to learning (ChamorroPremuzic & Furnham, 2009; Dickie, 1994; Diseth, 2007b; Donnon & Hecker, 2008; Edmunds & Richardson, 2009; Papinczak et al., 2008; Phan, 2007; Sobral, 2001; Watkins & Regmi, 1990; Wilson, Smart, & Watson, 1996; Zeegers, 2001, 2004).
关于性别，几项研究确认了与学习方式的关系。不幸的是，这些关系的性质在研究中有所不同。一些研究发现男性在表层学习方式上的得分高于女性（Berberoglu & Hei, 2003; Gijbels et al., 2005; Mattick et al., 2004; Tetik et al., 2009），但其他研究发现相反的结果（Cantwell & Grayson, 2002; Duff, 2002; Duff et al., 2004; Furnham et al., 2007; Sadler-Smith, 1996）。关于深层学习方式，女性在深层学习方式上的得分高于男性（Cantwell & Grayson, 2002; Hayes & Richardson, 1995; Tetik et al., 2009）。然而，Tural Dincer 和 Akdeniz（2008）发现这一效应仅在第一年存在；在第二、第三和第四年学习中，这一效应消失了。另一方面，Berberoglu 和 Hei（2003）以及 Sadler-Smith（1996）发现男性在深层学习方式上的得分高于女性。 关于这个问题的不确定性更为明显，因为许多研究没有发现性别与学习方式之间的显著关系（ChamorroPremuzic & Furnham, 2009; Dickie, 1994; Diseth, 2007b; Donnon & Hecker, 2008; Edmunds & Richardson, 2009; Papinczak et al., 2008; Phan, 2007; Sobral, 2001; Watkins & Regmi, 1990; Wilson, Smart, & Watson, 1996; Zeegers, 2001, 2004）。

In our literature search, three studies were retrieved concerning the relationship between intellectual ability and approaches to learning but they did not show comparable results. While Chamorro-Premuzic and Furnham (2008) found a significant positive correlation between a deep approach to learning and a student’s intelligence quotient, this relationship was not confirmed by Diseth (2002) and Furnham, Swami, Arteche, and Chamorro-Premuzic (2008). Fluid intelligence, i.e.
在我们的文献搜索中，检索到三项关于智力与学习方法之间关系的研究，但它们没有显示出可比的结果。虽然 Chamorro-Premuzic 和 Furnham（2008）发现深度学习方法与学生智商之间存在显著的正相关，但 Diseth（2002）以及 Furnham、Swami、Arteche 和 Chamorro-Premuzic（2008）并未确认这种关系。流体智力，即
abstract reasoning, was also found to be significantly positively correlated with a deep approach in the study of ChamorroPremuzic and Furnham (2008) but not in the study of Furnham et al. (2008). In addition, Diseth (2002) indicated that the scores on a vocabulary test of intelligence were negatively correlated with the surface approach. Concerning level of cognitive development, Zhang and Watkins (2001) showed that thinking dualistically was associated with adopting more surface approaches, while thinking from multiple perspectives and using relativistic terms was associated with a stronger deep motivation. The highest level of cognitive development, i.e. making a commitment to what you value, was significantly positively related to using a deep approach.
抽象推理在 ChamorroPremuzic 和 Furnham（2008）的研究中也被发现与深度学习方法显著正相关，但在 Furnham 等人（2008）的研究中则没有。此外，Diseth（2002）指出，智力词汇测试的得分与表层学习方法呈负相关。关于认知发展的水平，Zhang 和 Watkins（2001）显示，二元思维与采用更多表层学习方法相关，而从多个角度思考和使用相对主义术语则与更强的深度动机相关。最高的认知发展水平，即对你所重视的事物做出承诺，与使用深度学习方法显著正相关。

Besides intellectual ability, personality is another rather stable student factor that influences students’ approaches to learning. We retrieved nine studies concerning this topic (Arteche, Chamorro-Premuzic, Ackerman, & Furnham, 2009; Chamorro-Premuzic, Furnham, & Lewis, 2007; Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2008, 2009; Diseth, 2003; Duff et al., 2004; Furnham et al., 2008; Swanberg & Martinsen, 2010; Zhang, 2003). Main findings of the correlational analyses in these studies showed that openness to experience (e.g. being imaginative, artistically sensitive, and intellectually curious) was significantly positively related to a deep approach and significantly negatively to a surface approach. Similar patterns of relationships were found regarding extraversion (e.g. being sociable, cheerful and active), conscientiousness (e.g. being responsible, organised, and hard-working), and agreeableness (e.g. being compassionate, empathic and trustworthy), but the reverse relationships were found with regard to neuroticism (e.g. being emotionally unstable, anxious, and pessimistic).
除了智力能力，个性是另一个相对稳定的学生因素，影响学生的学习方式。我们检索了九项关于这个主题的研究（Arteche, Chamorro-Premuzic, Ackerman, & Furnham, 2009; Chamorro-Premuzic, Furnham, & Lewis, 2007; Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2008, 2009; Diseth, 2003; Duff et al., 2004; Furnham et al., 2008; Swanberg & Martinsen, 2010; Zhang, 2003）。这些研究的相关分析的主要发现表明，开放性（例如，富有想象力、艺术敏感和智力好奇）与深度学习方式显著正相关，与表面学习方式显著负相关。关于外向性（例如，善于交际、开朗和活跃）、责任心（例如，负责任、有条理和勤奋）和宜人性（例如，富有同情心、善解人意和可信赖）也发现了类似的关系模式，但神经质（例如，情绪不稳定、焦虑和悲观）则发现了相反的关系。

Since students do not enter a learning environment like ‘empty vessels’ but bring own experiences with them, these previous experiences may influence students’ approaches to learning. In particular, Beckwith (1991) found that prior knowledge about a course was significantly negatively correlated with a surface strategy, while no significant relationship was found with the deep approach. Gulikers et al. (2008) investigated whether a difference in the amount of practical experience (freshman versus senior) resulted in the adoption of different approaches to learning, but no significant differences were found. Concerning learning habits, Entwistle and Tait (1990) found that the time spent on independent studying, understanding notes and using textbooks was related to a meaning orientation.
由于学生并不是像“空容器”一样进入学习环境，而是带着自己的经验，这些先前的经验可能会影响学生的学习方式。特别是，Beckwith（1991）发现，关于课程的先前知识与表层学习策略显著负相关，而与深层学习方法没有显著关系。Gulikers 等（2008）调查了实践经验的多少（大一与大四）是否导致采用不同的学习方法，但没有发现显著差异。关于学习习惯，Entwistle 和 Tait（1990）发现，独立学习、理解笔记和使用教科书所花费的时间与意义导向有关。

The fact that student-centred learning environments do not always succeed in stimulating the use of deep approaches to learning might also be explained by their preferences for particular teaching methods. Research (Byrne, Flood, and Willis, 2004; Entwistle & Tait, 1990; Papinczak, 2009) showed that a preference for teaching methods that supported understanding (e.g. lecturers who show what they think or comment on students’ ideas) was significantly positively correlated with a deep approach and deep learners, whereas a preference for teaching methods that focused on transmitting information or promoting rote learning was significantly positively correlated with a surface (-apathetic) approach and surface-apathetic learners. Similar findings were found by Entwistle and Tait (1993) for successful students who passed the examination. Preferences for features of the learning environment that facilitated learning (i.e. preferences for challenging lectures, open questions in exams, discussions in tutorials, and courses which allow choice) were positively related to a meaning orientation, while surface preferences (i.e. lectures which give good notes, exams linked to lectures, tutorials reinforcing lectures, and courses with defined reading) were positively related to a reproducing orientation. Chamorro-Premuzic et al. (2007) investigated students’ preferences for several interactive teaching modalities such as laboratory classes, small-group tutorials, clinical teaching and discussion groups, and several non-interactive teaching modalities like standard lectures and independent study. The results described a deep approach being significantly positively related, and a surface approach being significantly negatively related to preferences for interactive teaching methods. Kember et al. (2008) investigated the approaches to learning of students in their current study and in their most disliked course. They found that students’ deep approaches were more prevalent in their current study than in their most disliked course, but the reverse pattern was observed for the surface approaches. In other words, the less preferred course was associated with a more surface approach to learning.
学生中心的学习环境并不总是能够激发深度学习方法的使用，这可能也与他们对特定教学方法的偏好有关。研究（Byrne, Flood, 和 Willis, 2004; Entwistle & Tait, 1990; Papinczak, 2009）表明，偏好支持理解的教学方法（例如，讲师展示他们的想法或对学生的观点进行评论）与深度学习方法和深度学习者显著正相关，而偏好以传递信息或促进死记硬背为重点的教学方法则与表面（-冷漠）学习方法和表面-冷漠学习者显著正相关。Entwistle 和 Tait（1993）对通过考试的成功学生也发现了类似的结果。偏好促进学习的学习环境特征（即偏好具有挑战性的讲座、考试中的开放性问题、辅导中的讨论以及允许选择的课程）与意义导向呈正相关，而表面偏好（即 提供良好笔记的讲座、与讲座相关的考试、强化讲座的辅导以及有明确阅读要求的课程与再现导向呈正相关。Chamorro-Premuzic 等（2007）研究了学生对几种互动教学方式的偏好，如实验课、小组辅导、临床教学和讨论小组，以及几种非互动教学方式，如标准讲座和独立学习。结果表明，深度学习方法与对互动教学方法的偏好显著正相关，而表面学习方法与对互动教学方法的偏好显著负相关。Kember 等（2008）研究了学生在当前学习和最不喜欢的课程中的学习方法。他们发现，学生在当前学习中的深度学习方法比在最不喜欢的课程中更为普遍，但表面学习方法则呈现相反的模式。换句话说，较不喜欢的课程与更表面的学习方法相关。

Since motivation and approaches to learning have often been found to be related, it may be possible that students do not reach a deep approach in a student-centred learning environment because they lack the motivation to attain that high quality level of learning (Sambell, McDowell, & Brown, 1997). Results concerning the interrelationship of approaches and motivation showed that a deep approach was mainly associated with intrinsic (goal) orientation (Entwistle & Tait, 1990, 1993; Entwistle et al., 2002; Harris, 2004; Thomas & Gadbois, 2007), autonomous motivation as defined by Deci and Ryan (2000) as an experience of enacting with a sense of volition and choice (Baeten, Struyven, & Dochy, 2009), motive for success (Diseth & Martinsen, 2003), motivation to study (Wilson, 2009), and mastery-approach goals (Cano & Berbén, 2009). A surface approach on the other hand was generally found to be associated with an extrinsic (goal) orientation (Entwistle et al., 2002; Harris, 2004), controlled motivation as defined by Deci and Ryan (2000) as a feeling pressured to do something (Baeten et al., 2009), fear of failure (Entwistle & Tait, 1993), a motive to avoid failure (Diseth & Martinsen, 2003) and performance-avoidance goals (Cano & Berbén, 2009).
由于动机和学习方法之间常常存在关联，因此学生在以学生为中心的学习环境中可能无法达到深度学习的方法，因为他们缺乏达到高质量学习水平的动机（Sambell, McDowell, & Brown, 1997）。关于方法和动机之间相互关系的结果表明，深度学习方法主要与内在（目标）导向相关（Entwistle & Tait, 1990, 1993; Entwistle et al., 2002; Harris, 2004; Thomas & Gadbois, 2007），由 Deci 和 Ryan（2000）定义的自主动机，即以意愿和选择的感觉进行的体验（Baeten, Struyven, & Dochy, 2009），成功动机（Diseth & Martinsen, 2003），学习动机（Wilson, 2009），以及掌握导向目标（Cano & Berbén, 2009）。另一方面，表层学习方法通常与外在（目标）导向相关（Entwistle et al., 2002; Harris, 2004），由 Deci 和 Ryan（2000）定义的受控动机，即感到被迫做某事的感觉（Baeten et al., 2009)，对失败的恐惧（Entwistle & Tait，1993），避免失败的动机（Diseth & Martinsen，2003）和表现回避目标（Cano & Berbén，2009）。

As is indicated above, both fear of failure and a motivation to avoid failure are related to the use of surface approaches to learning. By contrast, if students are more self-confident and have higher self-efficacy, they are usually inclined towards the use of a deep approach and less towards the use of a surface approach (Cassidy & Eachus, 2000; Duff, 2004; Harris, 2004; Papinczak, 2009; Rodriguez, 2009; Thomas & Gadbois, 2007).
如上所述，害怕失败和避免失败的动机与表层学习方法的使用有关。相反，如果学生更自信并且自我效能感更高，他们通常倾向于使用深层学习方法，而较少使用表层学习方法（Cassidy & Eachus, 2000; Duff, 2004; Harris, 2004; Papinczak, 2009; Rodriguez, 2009; Thomas & Gadbois, 2007）。

Although student-centred learning environments were expected to stimulate students towards the use of deeper approaches to learning, empirical research in higher education did not show consistent findings. These inconsistent findings
尽管以学生为中心的学习环境被期望能激励学生采用更深层次的学习方法，但高等教育的实证研究并未显示出一致的结果。这些不一致的结果
gave rise to the current literature review on encouraging and discouraging factors related to the use of deep approaches to learning. First, both encouraging and discouraging factors were identified within empirical research on the influence of student-centred learning environments on students’ approaches to learning (research question 1). Next, the relationships between those factors and students’ approaches to learning were investigated in-depth by exploring literature (research question 2), taking into account our criteria for inclusion.
产生了关于鼓励和抑制与深度学习方法相关因素的当前文献综述。首先，在关于以学生为中心的学习环境对学生学习方法影响的实证研究中，识别了鼓励和抑制因素（研究问题 1）。接下来，通过探索文献深入研究了这些因素与学生学习方法之间的关系（研究问题 2），并考虑了我们的纳入标准。

Results of research question 1 show that both encouraging and discouraging factors can be situated in the context in which the student learns, in the student’s perception of that context, and in characteristics of the student himself. While several encouraging and discouraging factors have a mainly univocal influence on students’ approaches to learning, the relationship with some other variables is less clear. Next, the main findings to research question 2 will be overviewed.
研究问题 1 的结果表明，鼓励和阻碍因素都可以置于学生学习的背景中、学生对该背景的感知中以及学生自身的特征中。虽然一些鼓励和阻碍因素对学生的学习方式有主要的单一影响，但与其他一些变量的关系则不太明确。接下来，将概述研究问题 2 的主要发现。

Concerning the context, innovative assessment - which is often used in combination with student-centred learning environments - may affect students’ learning, though in an undesirable direction, i.e. resulting in the adoption of more surface approaches to learning (Baeten et al., 2008; Gijbels & Dochy, 2006; Struyven et al., 2006). This may be explained by the fact that being successful in terms of assessment does not always require a deep approach to learning. While students’ deep approaches often result in qualitatively better learning outcomes (Minbashian et al., 2004; Trigwell & Prosser, 1991a, 1991b), the use of deep approaches is not always reflected in higher quantitative learning outcomes (Byrne et al., 2004; Gijbels et al., 2005; Kember, Jamieson, Pomfret, & Wong, 1995). Besides innovative assessment, the teacher seems to play a role in the approaches students take to go about the learning materials. If teachers are more oriented towards students and changing their conceptions (Trigwell et al., 1999) and are more involved (Garrison & Cleveland-Innes, 2005), students are more inclined to use deep approaches. Furthermore, students in different disciplines use different approaches to learning. Most studies addressing a discipline effect are in favour of the human sciences, in particular arts, social sciences, psychology, language/literature, health, politics and philosophy, in which students score in general higher on the deep approach compared to the disciplines of science, (bio)chemistry, microbiology, construction and engineering, mathematics, statistics, economics, business and accounting (e.g. Eley, 1992; Kember et al., 2008). However, it can be questioned whether disciplines cultivate certain approaches to learning in students or whether it is the student with a certain learning approach who is attracted by a specific discipline. Moreover, the items in most questionnaires were designed with education and social science students in mind. As a consequence, the deep items might not fit other disciplines equally well, and so the effects of discipline might be attributed in part to the items not being equally valid in describing learning processes in different disciplines. Also the duration of the intervention is mentioned by numerous authors as an encouraging or discouraging factor (e.g. Baeten et al., 2008; Balasooriya, Hughes et al., 2009; Gijbels et al., 2008). As it seems difficult to encourage a deep approach, an intervention during a short period of time may not be sufficient to encourage a deep approach. It might take longer for students to change from a surface to deep approach.
关于背景，创新评估——通常与以学生为中心的学习环境结合使用——可能会影响学生的学习，尽管方向并不理想，即导致采用更多表层学习方法（Baeten et al., 2008; Gijbels & Dochy, 2006; Struyven et al., 2006）。这可以通过以下事实来解释：在评估方面取得成功并不总是需要深度学习方法。虽然学生的深度学习方法通常会导致更高质量的学习成果（Minbashian et al., 2004; Trigwell & Prosser, 1991a, 1991b），但深度学习方法并不总是反映在更高的量化学习成果中（Byrne et al., 2004; Gijbels et al., 2005; Kember, Jamieson, Pomfret, & Wong, 1995）。除了创新评估，教师似乎在学生处理学习材料的方法中也扮演着角色。如果教师更关注学生并改变他们的观念（Trigwell et al., 1999），并且更积极参与（Garrison & Cleveland-Innes, 2005），学生更倾向于使用深度学习方法。 此外，不同学科的学生采用不同的学习方法。大多数关于学科效应的研究支持人文学科，特别是艺术、社会科学、心理学、语言/文学、健康、政治和哲学，学生在深度学习方法上的得分普遍高于科学、（生）化学、微生物学、建筑和工程、数学、统计学、经济学、商业和会计等学科（例如，Eley，1992；Kember 等，2008）。然而，可以质疑的是，学科是否培养学生的某种学习方法，还是具有某种学习方法的学生被特定学科所吸引。此外，大多数问卷中的项目是针对教育和社会科学学生设计的。因此，深度项目可能不适合其他学科，因此学科效应可能部分归因于这些项目在描述不同学科的学习过程时的有效性不均等。许多作者还提到干预的持续时间作为一个鼓励或抑制因素（例如。g. Baeten et al., 2008; Balasooriya, Hughes et al., 2009; Gijbels et al., 2008)。由于似乎很难鼓励深度学习方法，在短时间内的干预可能不足以促进深度学习方法。学生从表层学习转变为深度学习可能需要更长的时间。

Since the research studies retrieved in order to answer research question 1 mainly investigated the effects of studentcentred learning environments on the whole group of students, they looked primarily at the context-dependent nature of approaches to learning, often without paying attention to particular subgroups of students. This is an important lack because several student factors may encourage or discourage the adoption of deep approaches to learning directly or indirectly through students’ perceptions of the context.
由于为回答研究问题 1 而检索的研究主要调查了以学生为中心的学习环境对整个学生群体的影响，因此它们主要关注学习方法的情境依赖性，往往没有关注特定的学生子群体。这是一个重要的缺失，因为几个学生因素可能通过学生对环境的感知直接或间接地鼓励或阻碍深度学习方法的采用。

With regard to perceived contextual factors - which can differ considerably from the intentions of the curriculum designer or the expectations of the teacher (Argyris & Schön, 1978) - it has been shown that in order to attain deep approaches to learning students should be satisfied with the overall course quality (Diseth, 2007a; Diseth et al., 2010; Richardson et al., 2007) or specific features of the course/learning environment, i.e. appropriateness of the workload (e.g. Cope & Staehr, 2005; Diseth et al., 2006), appropriateness of the amount of information (Svirko & Mellanby, 2008), quality of the teaching (e.g. Crawford et al., 1998; Lawless & Richardson, 2002), supportiveness of the teacher (Eley, 1992), clarity of goals and standards (e.g. Eley, 1992; Lawless & Richardson, 2002), usefulness of the course book (Nijhuis et al., 2005) and relevance to professional practice (Entwistle & Tait, 1990). In addition, the more students perceive the teaching approaches as student-centred (M. Leung et al., 2008) and the more opportunities they see for independent studying (e.g. Trigwell & Prosser, 1991a; Wilson et al., 1997), the more they incline towards a deep approach. Also students’ perceptions of concrete teaching behaviours such as answering students’ questions, giving feedback, structuring the course, providing materials and illustrating lectures contribute to the use of deep approaches to learning (Valk & Marandi, 2005). Concordant with the perceptions of the teacher and teaching methods, the perceptions of the assessment modes are considered to be important. Students who perceive the assessment as appropriate (e.g. Crawford et al., 1998; Lawless & Richardson, 2002), as assessing deep learning (e.g. Scouller, 1998; Segers et al., 2006), as authentic and resembling their future professional practice (Gulikers et al., 2008), and as stimulating their learning and being motivating (Segers, Gijbels et al., 2008), employ more deep approaches.
关于感知的情境因素——这些因素可能与课程设计者的意图或教师的期望有很大不同（Argyris & Schön, 1978）——研究表明，为了实现深度学习，学生应该对整体课程质量感到满意（Diseth, 2007a；Diseth et al., 2010；Richardson et al., 2007）或课程/学习环境的特定特征，即工作量的适当性（例如，Cope & Staehr, 2005；Diseth et al., 2006）、信息量的适当性（Svirko & Mellanby, 2008）、教学质量（例如，Crawford et al., 1998；Lawless & Richardson, 2002）、教师的支持性（Eley, 1992）、目标和标准的清晰性（例如，Eley, 1992；Lawless & Richardson, 2002）、课程书的实用性（Nijhuis et al., 2005）以及与专业实践的相关性（Entwistle & Tait, 1990）。此外，学生越是将教学方法视为以学生为中心（M. Leung et al., 2008），并且他们看到的独立学习机会越多（例如，Trigwell & Prosser, 1991a；Wilson et al., 1997），他们越倾向于采取深度学习方法。 学生对具体教学行为的看法，例如回答学生问题、给予反馈、结构化课程、提供材料和讲解课程，都会影响深度学习方法的使用（Valk & Marandi, 2005）。与教师和教学方法的看法一致，评估方式的看法被认为是重要的。那些认为评估适当的学生（例如，Crawford et al., 1998；Lawless & Richardson, 2002），认为评估深度学习（例如，Scouller, 1998；Segers et al., 2006），认为评估真实且类似于他们未来的专业实践（Gulikers et al., 2008），并且认为评估能够激发他们的学习和具有激励作用（Segers, Gijbels et al., 2008），会采用更多的深度学习方法。

When attempting to induce a deep approach by means of a student-centred learning environment, it is important to take these perceived contextual factors into account by maintaining an appropriate workload and information load, by providing support, clear goals, possibilities for independent studying, etc. However, in this regard new questions may arise. For instance, how many possibilities for independent studying should be provided or which amount of workload is appropriate in order to increase deep learning. Quasi-experimental research in which these factors are manipulated could answer these questions.
在试图通过以学生为中心的学习环境引导深度学习时，重要的是考虑这些感知的背景因素，保持适当的工作量和信息负荷，提供支持、明确的目标、独立学习的可能性等。然而，在这方面可能会出现新的问题。例如，应该提供多少独立学习的可能性，或者多少工作量是适当的，以增加深度学习。对这些因素进行操控的准实验研究可以回答这些问题。

As to the student factors, several relationships have been found with approaches to learning. One major variable of influence on students’ actual approach to learning is their initial approach (e.g. Fox et al., 2001; McParland et al., 2004). Gijbels et al. (2008) found that the stronger the initial deep or surface approach of students, the less students change their approach. However, it seems that the initial deep and surface approach cannot change equally (S. Leung et al., 2008; Wilson
关于学生因素，已经发现与学习方法之间存在几种关系。影响学生实际学习方法的一个主要变量是他们的初始方法（例如，Fox 等，2001；McParland 等，2004）。Gijbels 等（2008）发现，学生的初始深度或表面学习方法越强，学生改变学习方法的可能性就越小。然而，似乎初始的深度和表面学习方法不能同等改变（S. Leung 等，2008；Wilson）。
& Fowler, 2005). In this regard, Marton and Säljö (1997) stated previously that, in general, it was easier to induce a surface than a deep approach to learning. Other studies that investigated the variability of approaches confirmed this statement and found a significant increase or no change in the use of surface approaches and a decrease in the use of deep approaches over time (Donnon & Hecker, 2008; Duckwall, Arnold, & Hayes, 1991; Yin, 1999). Nijhuis, Segers, and Gijselaers (2008) even indicated that students can be divided in two groups according to the variability of their learning strategies (i.e. one component of approaches to learning), namely students whose deep and surface learning strategies vary little on the one hand and much on the other hand.
& Fowler, 2005）。在这方面，Marton 和 Säljö（1997）之前曾指出，通常来说，诱导表层学习方法比深层学习方法更容易。其他研究调查了学习方法的变异性，证实了这一说法，并发现表层学习方法的使用显著增加或没有变化，而深层学习方法的使用则随着时间的推移而减少（Donnon & Hecker, 2008；Duckwall, Arnold, & Hayes, 1991；Yin, 1999）。Nijhuis、Segers 和 Gijselaers（2008）甚至指出，学生可以根据其学习策略的变异性分为两组，即一方面深层和表层学习策略变化不大，另一方面变化较大。

Besides initial approach to learning, other student characteristics have an impact on students’ learning, several of which have a clear influence such as age, personality, preferences for teaching methods, motivation, self-confidence and selfefficacy. Both age and personality are factors that cannot be manipulated. The older students are (e.g. Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2009; Christie et al., 2006) and the more their personality is characterised by openness to experience, extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness and emotional stability (e.g. Chamorro-Premuzic et al., 2007; Diseth, 2003), the more they use a deep approach. So, when attempting to induce a deep approach in a student-centred learning environment, it is possible that the age and the personality of the students will prohibit the adoption of a deep approach. However, these factors - in particular age - can be taken into account when designing a learning environment for a specific group of students. In contrast to age and personality, students’ motivation, self-confidence and self-efficacy can be enhanced and students’ teaching preferences can be changed. If a student-centred learning environment may succeed in establishing an intrinsic or autonomous motivation (Baeten et al., 2009; Entwistle et al., 2002) or a motivation to study and reach success (Diseth & Martinsen, 2003; Wilson, 2009), students may be encouraged to adopt a deep approach. Likewise, if students feel self-confident and show a high self-efficacy in a student-centred learning environment, they will be more inclined towards the use of a deep approach. Moreover, if students prefer teaching methods that are interactive (Chamorro-Premuzic et al., 2007), support understanding (e.g. Byrne et al., 2004), or facilitate learning (Entwistle & Tait, 1993), a deep approach will be more frequently adopted. Furthermore, gender, intellectual ability and level of cognitive development, and previous experiences seemed to matter in the way students approach their learning but less clear relationships were found.
除了学习的初始方法，其他学生特征也会影响学生的学习，其中一些特征有明显的影响，例如年龄、个性、对教学方法的偏好、动机、自信心和自我效能。年龄和个性是无法操控的因素。学生越大（例如，Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2009；Christie et al., 2006），他们的个性越倾向于开放性、外向性、尽责性、宜人性和情绪稳定性（例如，Chamorro-Premuzic et al., 2007；Diseth, 2003），他们就越倾向于采用深度学习方法。因此，在试图在以学生为中心的学习环境中引导深度学习时，学生的年龄和个性可能会阻碍深度学习方法的采用。然而，这些因素——特别是年龄——在为特定学生群体设计学习环境时可以考虑。与年龄和个性相反，学生的动机、自信心和自我效能可以得到增强，学生的教学偏好也可以改变。 如果以学生为中心的学习环境能够成功建立内在或自主的动机（Baeten et al., 2009; Entwistle et al., 2002）或学习和取得成功的动机（Diseth & Martinsen, 2003; Wilson, 2009），学生可能会被鼓励采用深度学习方法。同样，如果学生在以学生为中心的学习环境中感到自信并表现出较高的自我效能，他们将更倾向于使用深度学习方法。此外，如果学生偏好互动性强的教学方法（Chamorro-Premuzic et al., 2007）、支持理解（例如，Byrne et al., 2004）或促进学习（Entwistle & Tait, 1993），深度学习方法将被更频繁地采用。此外，性别、智力水平和认知发展水平以及以往的经验似乎在学生学习方式上起着重要作用，但关系不太明确。

While the use of criteria for inclusion is necessary to have a focus on the wide area of research studies on approaches to learning, those criteria create limitations too. First of all, we included only studies that measured approaches to learning as defined by the intention of the student when starting a task and the learning processes and strategies used to carry out a task (Biggs, 2001; Entwistle, 1991, 1997; Marton & Säljö, 1997). Since this definition of approaches to learning and the related instruments of ASI (Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983), SPQ (Biggs, 1987) and adapted versions of both are still frequently used in contemporary research (see research question 1), we preferred to use this narrow conception of approaches to learning.
虽然使用纳入标准对于关注学习方法的广泛研究领域是必要的，但这些标准也会带来限制。首先，我们只纳入了那些测量学习方法的研究，这些方法是由学生在开始任务时的意图以及用于执行任务的学习过程和策略所定义的（Biggs, 2001; Entwistle, 1991, 1997; Marton & Säljö, 1997）。由于这种学习方法的定义以及相关的 ASI（Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983）、SPQ（Biggs, 1987）和这两者的改编版本在当代研究中仍然被频繁使用（见研究问题 1），我们更倾向于使用这种狭义的学习方法概念。

Secondly, this review is based only on the quantitative research tradition on approaches to learning since this research methodology is often used to estimate the effects of student-centred learning environments on students’ approaches to learning. Nevertheless, a review of qualitative research studies on approaches to learning could complement our findings.
其次，这项评审仅基于关于学习方法的定量研究传统，因为这种研究方法通常用于估计以学生为中心的学习环境对学生学习方法的影响。然而，对学习方法的定性研究的评审可以补充我们的发现。

Thirdly, throughout this review the concept of approaches to learning is used as a monolithic entity while in fact it comprises several characteristics, for example a deep approach refers to an intention to understand, an intrinsic interest in the task, relating ideas, using evidence, etc. (see Section 1.1). Therefore, it might not be clear which aspect of the deep approach is being influenced by the factors in the studies reviewed. Future research could address this issue. Similarly, as was indicated in Section 1.2, many different teaching methods are used under the banner of student-centred learning environments, and each of those will be implemented in different ways, depending on both institutional circumstances as well as the varying interpretations of the teachers. As a consequence, differences in results may be inherent to differences in implementation of student-centred learning environments. What’s more, students are often not familiar with student-centred teaching methods, and therefore the influence of student-centred learning environments on the use of deep approaches could be prohibiting. Therefore, future research could look at the influence of mixed learning environments where, for example, the student-centred learning environment is supported by lectures or where a student-centred learning environment is gradually implemented. The use of a mixed learning environment could explain why Sivan et al. (2000) and Wilson and Fowler (2005) found a positive influence of a student-centred learning environment on the use of a deep approach, while other researchers did not (e.g. Nijhuis et al., 2005; Segers et al., 2006; Struyven et al., 2006). In Sivan et al. (2000) and Wilson and Fowler (2005) research, students received both lectures (teacher-centred) and student-centred teaching methods which was not the case in the other studies.
第三，在本次评审中，学习方法的概念被视为一个整体，而实际上它包含多个特征，例如，深度学习方法指的是理解的意图、对任务的内在兴趣、关联思想、使用证据等（见第 1.1 节）。因此，可能不清楚在所审查的研究中，深度学习方法的哪个方面受到因素的影响。未来的研究可以解决这个问题。同样，如第 1.2 节所示，在以学生为中心的学习环境下使用了许多不同的教学方法，而这些方法的实施方式各不相同，这取决于机构的情况以及教师的不同解释。因此，结果的差异可能源于以学生为中心的学习环境实施的差异。此外，学生通常对以学生为中心的教学方法不熟悉，因此以学生为中心的学习环境对深度学习方法的影响可能是限制性的。 因此，未来的研究可以关注混合学习环境的影响，例如，学生中心的学习环境得到讲座的支持，或者学生中心的学习环境逐渐实施。混合学习环境的使用可以解释为什么 Sivan 等人（2000 年）和 Wilson 与 Fowler（2005 年）发现学生中心学习环境对深度学习方法的使用有积极影响，而其他研究者则没有（例如，Nijhuis 等人，2005 年；Segers 等人，2006 年；Struyven 等人，2006 年）。在 Sivan 等人（2000 年）和 Wilson 与 Fowler（2005 年）的研究中，学生接受了讲座（以教师为中心）和学生中心的教学方法，而在其他研究中并非如此。

Fourthly, the review looked at relationships between single factors and approaches to learning as indicated by the model in Fig. 1. However, reality is much more complex and many factors which are interrelated might influence student learning. These simple relationships, however, might be a starting point to explore the influencing factors of students’ approaches to learning and their relatedness in-depth.
第四，审查考察了单一因素与学习方法之间的关系，如图 1 所示的模型所示。然而，现实要复杂得多，许多相互关联的因素可能会影响学生的学习。然而，这些简单的关系可能是探索影响学生学习方法的因素及其相关性的起点。

Finally, in spite of the large body of literature on learning approaches, a lot of the variables in Fig. 1 have not been investigated. In this respect, it should be noticed that there might be some publication bias. These encouraging and discouraging factors might be investigated but not published if they did not show significant effects or might not be retrieved in our literature search. For instance, lack of feedback and working in groups are very often suggested as an encouraging or discouraging
最后，尽管关于学习方法的文献很多，但图 1 中的许多变量尚未被研究。在这方面，应该注意到可能存在一些出版偏差。这些鼓励和阻碍因素可能会被研究但如果没有显示出显著效果则可能不会被发表，或者在我们的文献检索中可能无法找到。例如，缺乏反馈和团队合作常常被认为是鼓励或阻碍因素。
factor for inducing a deep learning approach. These two variables have been investigated in other educational research which has indicated their positive influence on learning (e.g. Hänze & Berger, 2007; Krause, Stark, & Mandl, 2009), but none of these studies met our criteria for inclusion. Reversely, there are several other factors which may influence students’ approaches in a student-centred learning environment. However, these factors were not mentioned as encouraging or discouraging factors in the conclusion, discussion, summary and limitations part of the retrieved articles to answer research question 1, and are therefore not included in Fig. 1, e.g. locus of control (Cassidy & Eachus, 2000) and English language ability (Gow, Kember, & Chow, 1991).
诱导深度学习方法的因素。这两个变量在其他教育研究中得到了调查，表明它们对学习有积极影响（例如，Hänze & Berger，2007；Krause，Stark，& Mandl，2009），但这些研究都不符合我们的纳入标准。相反，还有其他几个因素可能影响学生在以学生为中心的学习环境中的学习方式。然而，这些因素在检索到的文章的结论、讨论、摘要和局限性部分中并未被提及为鼓励或抑制因素，因此未包含在图 1 中，例如控制源（Cassidy & Eachus，2000）和英语语言能力（Gow，Kember，& Chow，1991）。

Despite these limitations, the current review gives a clear overview of encouraging and discouraging factors of students’ approaches to learning, thereby showing the complex process of stimulating students towards the use of deep approaches to learning in student-centred learning environments. The results of this review study could serve as a basis for new studies to fill in the gaps in our knowledge about approaches to learning.
尽管存在这些局限性，目前的评审清晰地概述了学生学习方法的鼓励和阻碍因素，从而展示了在以学生为中心的学习环境中激励学生采用深度学习方法的复杂过程。这项评审研究的结果可以作为新研究的基础，以填补我们对学习方法知识的空白。

Appendix A (Continued ) 附录 A（续）

Appendix A (Continued ) 附录 A（续）

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). 组织学习：行动理论视角。马萨诸塞州雷丁：阿迪森-韦斯利。
Arteche, A., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Ackerman, P., & Furnham, A. (2009). Typical intellectual engagement as a byproduct of openness, learning approaches, and self-assessed intelligence. Educational Psychology, 29(3), 357-367.
Arteche, A., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Ackerman, P., & Furnham, A. (2009). 典型的智力参与作为开放性、学习方法和自我评估智力的副产品。教育心理学, 29(3), 357-367.
Baeten, M., Dochy, F., & Struyven, K. (2008). Students’ approaches to learning and assessment preferences in a portfolio-based learning environment. Instructional Science, 36, 359-374.
Baeten, M., Dochy, F., & Struyven, K. (2008). 学生在基于作品集的学习环境中的学习方法和评估偏好。教学科学, 36, 359-374.
Baeten, M., Struyven, K., & Dochy, F. (2009). Student teachers’ approaches to learning in relation to their motivation and their perceived competence. Paper presented at the conference of the International Study Association on Teachers and Teaching, Rovaniemi, Finland.
Baeten, M., Struyven, K., & Dochy, F. (2009). 学生教师的学习方法与他们的动机和自我感知能力的关系。论文在芬兰罗瓦涅米举行的国际教师与教学研究协会会议上发表。
Balasooriya, C., Hughes, C., & Toohey, S. (2009). Impact of a new integrated medicine program on students’ approaches to learning. Higher Education Research and Development, 28(3), 289-302.
Balasooriya, C., Hughes, C., & Toohey, S. (2009). 新的综合医学项目对学生学习方法的影响。高等教育研究与发展, 28(3), 289-302.
Balasooriya, C., Toohey, S., & Hughes, C. (2009). The cross-over phenomenon: Unexpected patterns of change in students’ approaches to learning. Studies in Higher Education, 34(7), 781-794.
Balasooriya, C., Toohey, S., & Hughes, C. (2009). 交叉现象：学生学习方式变化的意外模式。《高等教育研究》，34(7)，781-794。
Beckwith, J. (1991). Approaches to learning, their context and relationship to assessment performance. Higher Education, 22(1), 17-30.
贝克威斯，J.（1991）。学习方法、其背景及与评估表现的关系。《高等教育》，22(1)，17-30。
Berberoglu, G., & Hei, L. (2003). A comparison of university students’ approaches to learning across Taiwan and Turkey. International Journal of Testing, 3(2), 173-187.
Berberoglu, G., & Hei, L. (2003). 台湾和土耳其大学生学习方法的比较。国际测试杂志, 3(2), 173-187.
Biggs, J. B. (1987). Study process questionnaire manual. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Biggs, J. B. (1987). 学习过程问卷手册。墨尔本：澳大利亚教育研究委员会。
Biggs, J. B. (2001). Enhancing learning: A matter of style or approach? In R. J. Sternberg, & L. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles (pp. 73-102). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Biggs, J. B. (2001). 增强学习：风格还是方法的问题？在 R. J. Sternberg 和 L. Zhang (编)，思维、学习和认知风格的视角 (第 73-102 页)。马霍瓦，NJ：劳伦斯·厄尔鲍姆协会。
Biggs, J., Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. P. (2001). The revised two-factor study process questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(1), 133-149.
Biggs, J., Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. P. (2001). 修订版双因素学习过程问卷：R-SPQ-2F. 英国教育心理学杂志, 71(1), 133-149.
Birenbaum, M. (1996). Assessment 2000: Towards a pluralistic approach to assessment. In M. Birenbaum, & F. Dochy (Eds.), Assessment of achievements, learning processes and prior knowledge (pp. 9-29). Boston: Kluwer Academic.
Booth, K., & James, B. (2001). Interactive learning in a higher education Level 1 mechanics module. International Journal of Science Education, 23(9), 955-967.
Booth, K., & James, B. (2001). 高等教育中互动学习的一级力学模块。国际科学教育杂志, 23(9), 955-967.
Byrne, M., Flood, B., & Willis, P. (2004). Using the student learning framework to explore the variation in academic performance of European business students. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 28(1), 67-78.
Byrne, M., Flood, B., & Willis, P. (2004). 使用学生学习框架探讨欧洲商科学生学业表现的差异。继续教育与高等教育杂志, 28(1), 67-78.
Campbell, J., Smith, D., Boulton-Lewis, G., Brownlee, J., Burnett, P. C., Carrington, S., et al. (2001). Students’ perception of teaching and learning: The influence of students’ approaches to learning and teachers’ approaching to teaching. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 7(2), 173-187.
坎贝尔, J., 史密斯, D., 博尔顿-刘易斯, G., 布朗利, J., 伯内特, P. C., 卡林顿, S., 等. (2001). 学生对教学和学习的看法：学生学习方式和教师教学方式的影响. 教师与教学：理论与实践, 7(2), 173-187.
Cannon, R., & Newble, D. (2000). A handbook for teachers in universities and colleges. A guide to improving teaching methods (4th ed.). London: Kogan Page.
Cannon, R., & Newble, D. (2000). 大学和学院教师手册。教学方法改进指南（第 4 版）。伦敦：Kogan Page。
Cano, F., & Berbén, A. B. G. (2009). University students’ achievement goals and approaches to learning in mathematics. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(1), 131-153.
Cano, F., & Berbén, A. B. G. (2009). 大学生在数学学习中的成就目标和学习方法。英国教育心理学杂志, 79(1), 131-153.
Cantwell, R., & Grayson, R. (2002). Individual differences among enabling students: A comparison across three enabling programmes. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 26(4), 293-306.
Cantwell, R., & Grayson, R. (2002). 促进学生之间的个体差异：对三个促进项目的比较。继续教育与高等教育杂志, 26(4), 293-306.
Cassidy, S., & Eachus, P. (2000). Learning style, academic belief systems, self reported student proficiency and academic achievement in higher education. Educational Psychology, 22(3), 307-319.
Cassidy, S., & Eachus, P. (2000). 学习风格、学术信念体系、自我报告的学生能力和高等教育中的学业成就。教育心理学, 22(3), 307-319.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T, & Furnham, A. (2008). Personality, intelligence and approaches to learning as predictors of academic performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 1596-1603.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T, & Furnham, A. (2008). 个性、智力和学习方法作为学业表现的预测因素。《个性与个体差异》，44，1596-1603。
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2009). Mainly openness: The relationship between the Big Five personality traits and learning approaches. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 524-529.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2009). 主要是开放性：五大人格特质与学习方式之间的关系。学习与个体差异，19，524-529。
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Furnham, A., & Lewis, M. (2007). Personality and approaches to learning predict preference for different teaching methods. Learning and Individual Differences, 17, 241-250.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Furnham, A., & Lewis, M. (2007). 个性与学习方式预测对不同教学方法的偏好。《学习与个体差异》，17，241-250。
Christie, H., Cree, V., Hounsell, J., McCune, V., & Tett, L. (2006). From college to university: Looking backwards, looking forwards. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 11(3), 351-365.
Christie, H., Cree, V., Hounsell, J., McCune, V., & Tett, L. (2006). 从学院到大学：回顾与展望。后义务教育研究, 11(3), 351-365。
Chung, J., & Chow, S. (2004). Promoting student learning through a student-centred problem-based learning subject curriculum. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 41(2), 157-168.
Chung, J., & Chow, S. (2004). 通过以学生为中心的问题导向学习课程促进学生学习。国际教育与教学创新，41(2)，157-168。

Cope, C., & Staehr, L. (2005). Improving students’ learning approaches through intervention in an information systems learning environment. Studies in Higher Education, 30(2), 181-197.
Cope, C., & Staehr, L. (2005). 通过在信息系统学习环境中的干预改善学生的学习方法。高等教育研究，30(2)，181-197。
Crawford, K., Gordon, S., Nicholas, J., & Prosser, M. (1998). Qualitatively different experiences of learning mathematics at university. Learning and Instruction, 8(5), 455-468.
Crawford, K., Gordon, S., Nicholas, J., & Prosser, M. (1998). 大学数学学习的质性不同体验。学习与教学，8(5)，455-468。
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). 目标追求的“什么”和“为什么”：人类需求与行为的自我决定。心理学探究, 11(4), 227-268.
De Corte, E. (2000). Marrying theory building and the improvement of school practice: A permanent challenge for instructional psychology. Learning and Instruction, 10(3), 249-266.
德科特，E.（2000）。将理论构建与学校实践的改进结合起来：对教学心理学的一个永久挑战。《学习与教学》，10（3），249-266。
Dekeyser, L., & Baert, H. (1999). [Project-based learning: Learning and working in group] Projectonderwijs: Leren en werken in groep. Leuven: Acco.
Dekeyser, L., & Baert, H. (1999). [基于项目的学习：在小组中学习和工作] 项目教育：在小组中学习和工作。鲁汶：Acco。
Dickie, L. (1994). Approach to learning and assessment in physics. Quebec, Canada: John Abbott College., ISBN 0-921017-18-9.
Dickie, L. (1994). 物理学的学习与评估方法。加拿大魁北克：约翰·阿博特学院，ISBN 0-921017-18-9。
Diseth, A. (2002). The relationship between intelligence, approaches to learning and academic achievement. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 46(2), 219-230.
Diseth, A. (2002). 智力、学习方法与学业成就之间的关系。斯堪的纳维亚教育研究杂志，46(2)，219-230。
Diseth, A. (2003). Personality and approaches to learning as predictors of academic achievement. European Journal of Personality, 17, 143-155.
Diseth, A. (2003). 个性与学习方式作为学业成就的预测因素。《欧洲人格杂志》，17，143-155。
Diseth, A. (2007a). Approaches to learning, course experience and examination grade among undergraduate psychology students: Testing of mediator effects and construct validity. Studies in Higher Education, 32(3), 373-388.
Diseth, A. (2007a). 学习方法、本科心理学学生的课程体验和考试成绩：中介效应和构建效度的检验。《高等教育研究》，32(3)，373-388。
Diseth, A. (2007b). Students’ evaluation of teaching, approaches to learning, and academic achievement. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 51(2), 185-204.
Diseth, A. (2007b). 学生对教学的评价、学习方法和学业成就。斯堪的纳维亚教育研究杂志，51(2)，185-204。
Diseth, A., & Martinsen, O. (2003). Approaches to learning, cognitive style, and motives as predictors of academic achievement. Educational Psychology, 23(2), 195-207.
Diseth, A., & Martinsen, O. (2003). 学习方法、认知风格和动机作为学业成就的预测因素。教育心理学, 23(2), 195-207.
Diseth, A., Pallesen, S., Brunborg, G., & Larsen, S. (2010). Academic achievement among first semester undergraduate psychology students: The role of course experience, effort, motives and learning strategies. Higher Education, 59, 335-352.
Diseth, A., Pallesen, S., Brunborg, G., & Larsen, S. (2010). 大学一年级心理学学生的学业成就：课程经验、努力、动机和学习策略的作用。《高等教育》，59，335-352。
Diseth, A., Pallesen, S., Hovland, A., & Larsen, S. (2006). Course experiences, approaches to learning and academic achievement. Education and Training, 48(2-3), 156-169.
Diseth, A., Pallesen, S., Hovland, A., & Larsen, S. (2006). 课程体验、学习方法与学业成就。教育与培训，48(2-3)，156-169。
Dochy, F., & Moerkerke, G. (1997). Assessment as a major influence on learning and instruction. International Journal of Educational Research, 27(5), 415-432.
Dochy, F., & Moerkerke, G. (1997). 评估对学习和教学的主要影响. 国际教育研究杂志, 27(5), 415-432.
Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Buehl, M. (1999). The relation between assessment practices and outcomes of studies: The case of research on prior knowledge. Review of Educational Research, 69(2), 145-186.
Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Buehl, M. (1999). 评估实践与研究结果之间的关系：关于先前知识研究的案例。教育研究评论, 69(2), 145-186.
Dochy, F., Segers, M., Gijbels, D., & Van den Bossche, P. (2002). [Student-centred education E problem-based education. Significance, background and effects] Studentgericht onderwijs & probleemgestuurd onderwijs. Betekenisachtergronden en effecten. Utrecht: Lemma.
Dochy, F., Segers, M., Gijbels, D., & Van den Bossche, P. (2002). [以学生为中心的教育与基于问题的教育。重要性、背景和影响] 学生中心教育与问题导向教育。意义背景和影响。乌得勒支：Lemma。
Dochy, F., Segers, M., Van den Bossche, P., & Gijbels, D. (2003). Effects of problem-based learning: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 13(5), 533-568.
Dochy, F., Segers, M., Van den Bossche, P., & Gijbels, D. (2003). 基于问题的学习的影响：一项元分析。《学习与教学》，13(5)，533-568。
Donnon, T., & Hecker, K. (2008). A model of approaches to learning and academic achievement of students from an inquiry based bachelor of health sciences program. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 38(1), 1-19.
Donnon, T., & Hecker, K. (2008). 一种基于探究的健康科学学士项目学生学习方法与学业成就的模型。加拿大高等教育杂志, 38(1), 1-19.
Duckwall, J., Arnold, L., & Hayes, J. (1991). Approaches to learning by undergraduate students: A longitudinal study. Research in Higher Education, 32(1), 1-13.
Duckwall, J., Arnold, L., & Hayes, J. (1991). 本科生的学习方法：一项纵向研究。高等教育研究, 32(1), 1-13.
Duff, A. (1999). Access policy and approaches to learning. Accounting Education, 8(2), 99-110.
Duff, A. (1999). 访问政策与学习方法。会计教育, 8(2), 99-110.
Duff, A. (2002). Approaches to learning: Factor invariance across gender. Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 997-1010.
Duff, A. (2002). 学习方法：性别间的因素不变性。《个性与个体差异》，33，997-1010。
Duff, A. (2004). The Revised Approaches to Studying Inventory (RASI) and its use in management education. Active Learning in Higher Education, 5, 56-72.
Duff, A. (2004). 修订后的库存研究方法（RASI）及其在管理教育中的应用。高等教育中的主动学习, 5, 56-72.
Duff, A., Boyle, E., Dunleavy, K., & Ferguson, J. (2004). The relationship between personality, approach to learning and academic performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 1907-1920.
Duff, A., Boyle, E., Dunleavy, K., & Ferguson, J. (2004). 人格、学习方式与学业表现之间的关系。《人格与个体差异》，36，1907-1920。
Edmunds, R., & Richardson, J. (2009). Conceptions of learning, approaches to studying and personal development in UK higher education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 295-309.
Edmunds, R., & Richardson, J. (2009). 英国高等教育中的学习观念、学习方法和个人发展。英国教育心理学杂志, 79, 295-309.
Elen, J., & Lowyck, J. (2000). Instructional metacognitive knowledge: A qualitative study on conceptions of freshman about instruction. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(3), 421-444.
Elen, J., & Lowyck, J. (2000). 教学元认知知识：关于新生对教学观念的定性研究。《课程研究杂志》，32(3)，421-444。
Eley, M. (1992). Differential adoption of study approaches within individual students. Higher Education, 23(3), 231-254.
Eley, M. (1992). 个体学生学习方法的差异性采用。高等教育, 23(3), 231-254.
Ellis, R., Marcus, G., & Taylor, R. (2005). Learning through inquiry: Student difficulties with online course-based material. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 239-252.
Ellis, R., Marcus, G., & Taylor, R. (2005). 通过探究学习：学生在在线课程材料中的困难。计算机辅助学习杂志, 21, 239-252.
Entwistle, N. J. (1991). Approaches to learning and perceptions of the learning environment. Introduction to the special issue. Higher Education,22, 201-204.
Entwistle, N. J. (1991). 学习方式与学习环境的感知。特刊导言。《高等教育》，22，201-204。
Entwistle, N. J. (1997). Contrasting perspectives on learning. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell, & N. Entwistle (Eds.), The experience of learning. Implications for teaching and studying in higher education (2nd ed., pp. 3-22). Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.
Entwistle, N. J. (1997). 学习的对比视角。在 F. Marton, D. Hounsell 和 N. Entwistle (编辑) 的《学习的体验：对高等教育教学和学习的启示》（第 2 版，第 3-22 页）。爱丁堡：苏格兰学术出版社。
Entwistle, N., & McCune, V. (2004). The conceptual bases of study strategy inventories. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 315-345.
Entwistle, N., & McCune, V. (2004). 学习策略清单的概念基础。教育心理学评论, 16(4), 315-345.
Entwistle, N.J., McCune, V., & Hounsell, D. (2002). Occassional report 1: Approaches to studying and perceptions of university teaching-learning environments: concepts, measures and preliminary findings. ETL Project, Universities of Edinburgh, Coventry and Durham. Available from: http://www.ed.ac.uk/etl.
Entwistle, N.J., McCune, V., & Hounsell, D. (2002). 偶然报告 1：研究和感知大学教学-学习环境的方法：概念、测量和初步发现。ETL 项目，爱丁堡大学、考文垂大学和达勒姆大学。可从以下网址获取：http://www.ed.ac.uk/etl。
Entwistle, N. J., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. London: Croom Helm.
Entwistle, N. J., & Ramsden, P. (1983). 理解学生学习. 伦敦: 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. (1990). 学习方法、教学评估和对对比学术环境的偏好。高等教育, 19, 169-194.
Entwistle, N., & Tait, H. (1993). Approaches to studying and preferences for teaching in higher education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta.
Entwistle, N., & Tait, H. (1993). 高等教育中的学习和教学偏好研究方法。论文在美国教育研究协会年会上发表，亚特兰大。
Entwistle, N. J., & Tait, H. (1994). The revised approaches to studying inventory. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh, Centre for Research into Learning and Instruction.
Entwistle, N. J., & Tait, H. (1994). 研究库存的修订方法。爱丁堡：爱丁堡大学，学习与教学研究中心。
Fox, R., McManus, I., & Winder, B. (2001). The shortened Study Process Questionnaire: An investigation of its structure and longitudinal stability using confirmatory factor analysis. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 511-530.
Furnham, A., Christopher, A. N., Garwood, J., & Martin, G. N. (2007). Approaches to learning and the acquisition of general knowledge. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 1563-1571.
Furnham, A., Christopher, A. N., Garwood, J., & Martin, G. N. (2007). 学习方法与一般知识的获取。《人格与个体差异》，43，1563-1571。
Furnham, A., Swami, V., Arteche, A., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2008). Cognitive ability, learning approaches and personality correlates of general knowledge. Educational Psychology, 28(4), 427-437.
Furnham, A., Swami, V., Arteche, A., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2008). 认知能力、学习方式和一般知识的人格相关性。教育心理学, 28(4), 427-437。
Garrison, D., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough. The American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 133-148.
Garrison, D., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). 在在线学习中促进认知存在：互动不足以满足需求。《美国远程教育杂志》，19(3)，133-148。
Gielen, S., Dochy, F., & Dierick, S. (2003). Evaluating the consequential validity of new modes of assessment: The influence of assessment on learning, including pre-, post-and true assessment effects. In M. Segers, F. Dochy, & E. Cascallar (Eds.), Optimising new modes of assessment: In search of qualities and standards (pp. 37-54). Netherland: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Gielen, S., Dochy, F., & Dierick, S. (2003). 评估新评估模式的结果有效性：评估对学习的影响，包括前评估、后评估和真实评估效果。在 M. Segers, F. Dochy, & E. Cascallar (编), 优化新评估模式：寻找质量和标准 (第 37-54 页). 荷兰：Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Gijbels, D., Coertjens, L., Vanthournout, G., Struyf, E., & Van Petegem, P. (2009). Changing students’ approaches to learning: A two-year study within a university teacher training course. Educational Studies, 35(5), 503-513.
Gijbels, D., Coertjens, L., Vanthournout, G., Struyf, E., & Van Petegem, P. (2009). 改变学生的学习方式：一项为期两年的大学教师培训课程研究。教育研究，35(5)，503-513。
Gijbels, D., & Dochy, F. (2006). Students’ assessment preferences and approaches to learning: Can formative assessment make a difference? Educational Studies, 32(4), 399-409.
Gijbels, D., & Dochy, F. (2006). 学生的评估偏好和学习方法：形成性评估能有所不同吗？教育研究, 32(4), 399-409.
Gijbels, D., Segers, M., & Struyf, E. (2008). Constructivist learning environments and the (im)possibility to change students’ perceptions of assessment demands and approaches to learning. Instructional Science, 36(5-6), 431-443.
Gijbels, D., Segers, M., & Struyf, E. (2008). 建构主义学习环境与改变学生对评估要求和学习方法的感知的（不）可能性。教学科学, 36(5-6), 431-443。
Gijbels, D., van de Watering, G., Dochy, F., & Van den Bossche, P. (2005). The relationship between students’ approaches to learning and the assessment of learning outcomes. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 20(4), 327-341.
Gijbels, D., van de Watering, G., Dochy, F., & Van den Bossche, P. (2005). 学生学习方式与学习成果评估之间的关系。欧洲教育心理学杂志，20(4)，327-341。
Gordon, C., & Debus, R. (2002). Developing deep learning approaches and personal teaching efficacy within a preservice teacher education context. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(4), 483-511.
戈登，C.，& 德布斯，R.（2002）。在师范教育背景下发展深度学习方法和个人教学效能。《英国教育心理学杂志》，72(4)，483-511。

Gow, L., Kember, D., & Chow, R. (1991). The effects of English language ability on approaches to learning. RELC Journal, 22(1), 49-68.
Gow, L., Kember, D., & Chow, R. (1991). 英语能力对学习方法的影响。RELC 期刊, 22(1), 49-68。
Groves, M. (2005). Problem-based learning and learning approach: Is there a relationship? Advances in Health Sciences Education, 10, 315-326.
Groves, M. (2005). 基于问题的学习和学习方法：它们之间有关系吗？健康科学教育进展, 10, 315-326.
Gulikers, J., Kester, L., Kirschner, P. A., & Bastiaens, T. J. (2008). The effect of practical experience on perceptions of assessment authenticity, study approach, and learning outcomes. Learning and Instruction, 18(2), 172-186.
Gulikers, J., Kester, L., Kirschner, P. A., & Bastiaens, T. J. (2008). 实践经验对评估真实性感知、学习方式和学习成果的影响。《学习与教学》，18(2)，172-186。
Hannafin, M., Hill, J., & Land, S. (1997). Student-centered learning and interactive multimedia: Status, issues, and implications. Contemporary Education, 68(2), 94-99.
Hannafin, M., Hill, J., & Land, S. (1997). 以学生为中心的学习与互动多媒体：现状、问题与影响。现代教育，68(2)，94-99。
Hänze, M., & Berger, R. (2007). Cooperative learning, motivational effects, and student characteristics: An experimental study comparing cooperative learning and direct instruction in 12th grade physics classes. Learning and Instruction, 17, 29-41.
Hänze, M., & Berger, R. (2007). 合作学习、动机效应和学生特征：一项比较 12 年级物理课堂中合作学习和直接教学的实验研究。学习与教学，17，29-41。
Harris, C. (2004). Understanding the role of epistemological beliefs in post-graduate studies: Motivation and conceptions of learning in first-year law students. Doctoral thesis. University of Texas at Austin.
哈里斯，C.（2004）。理解认识论信念在研究生学习中的作用：第一年法学生的动机和学习观念。博士论文。德克萨斯大学奥斯汀分校。
Hayes, K., & Richardson, J. T. E. (1995). Gender, subject and context as determinants of approaches to studying in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 20(2), 215-222.
Hayes, K., & Richardson, J. T. E. (1995). 性别、主题和背景作为高等教育学习方法的决定因素。《高等教育研究》，20(2)，215-222。
Herington, C., & Weaven, S. (2008). Action research and reflection on student approaches to learning in large first year university classes. The Australian Educational Researcher, 35(3), 111-134.
Herington, C., & Weaven, S. (2008). 行动研究与对大一大学班级学生学习方法的反思。《澳大利亚教育研究者》，35(3)，111-134。
Karagiannopoulou, E., & Christodoulides, P. (2005). The impact of Greek university students’ perceptions of their learning environment on approaches to studying and academic outcomes. International Journal of Educational Research, 43, 329-350.
Karagiannopoulou, E., & Christodoulides, P. (2005). 希腊大学生对学习环境的感知对学习方法和学术成果的影响。国际教育研究杂志, 43, 329-350.
Kember, D. (2004). Interpreting student workload and the factors which shape students’ perceptions of their workload. Studies in Higher Education, 29(2), 165-184.
Kember, D. (2004). 解释学生工作量及影响学生对其工作量感知的因素。《高等教育研究》，29(2)，165-184。
Kember, D., Jamieson, Q. W., Pomfret, M., & Wong, E. (1995). Learning approaches, study time and academic performance. Higher Education, $29,329-343$$29,329-343$29,329-34329,329-343.
Kember, D., Jamieson, Q. W., Pomfret, M., & Wong, E. (1995). 学习方法、学习时间与学业表现。高等教育， $29,329-343$$29,329-343$29,329-34329,329-343 。
Kember, D., & Leung, D. (1998). The dimensionality of approaches to learning: An investigation with confirmatory factor analysis on the structure of the SPQ and LPQ. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 395-407.
Kember, D., & Leung, D. (1998). 学习方法的维度：对 SPQ 和 LPQ 结构的确认性因子分析研究。英国教育心理学杂志, 68, 395-407.
Kember, D., Leung, D. Y. P., & McNaught, C. (2008). A workshop activity to demonstrate that approaches to learning are influenced by the teaching and learning environment. Active Learning in Higher Education, 9, 43-56.
Kember, D., Leung, D. Y. P., & McNaught, C. (2008). 一项研讨会活动，旨在展示学习方法受到教学和学习环境的影响。高等教育中的主动学习, 9, 43-56.
Kember, D., Ng, S., Pomfret, M., Tse, H., & Wong, E. T. T. (1996). An examination of the interrelationships between workload, study time, learning approaches and academic outcomes. Studies in Higher Education, 21(3), 347-360.
Kember, D., Ng, S., Pomfret, M., Tse, H., & Wong, E. T. T. (1996). 工作负荷、学习时间、学习方法与学术成果之间的相互关系研究。高等教育研究，21(3)，347-360。
Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.
Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. (2006). 为什么在教学中最小指导无效：对建构主义、发现式、基于问题、体验式和探究式教学失败的分析。教育心理学家, 41(2), 75-86.
Krause, U.-M., Stark, R., & Mandl, H. (2009). Effects of cooperative learning and feedback on e-learning in statistics. Learning and Instruction, 19(2), 158-170.
Krause, U.-M., Stark, R., & Mandl, H. (2009). 合作学习和反馈对统计学电子学习的影响。学习与教学，19(2)，158-170。
Kwok, R., & Ma, J. (1999). Use of a group support system for collaborative assessment. Computers and Education, 32, 109-125.
Kwok, R., & Ma, J. (1999). 使用群体支持系统进行协作评估。计算机与教育, 32, 109-125.
Lawless, C., & Richardson, J. (2002). Approaches to studying and perceptions of academic quality in distance education. Higher Education, 44, 257-282.
Lawless, C., & Richardson, J. (2002). 研究和对远程教育学术质量的看法的方法。高等教育, 44, 257-282.
Lea, S., Stephenson, D., & Troy, J. (2003). Higher education students’ attitudes to student-centred learning: Beyond ‘educational boulimia’? Studies in Higher Education, 28(3), 321-334.
Lea, S., Stephenson, D., & Troy, J. (2003). 高等教育学生对以学生为中心的学习的态度：超越“教育性贪食症”？高等教育研究，28(3)，321-334。
Leung, D., Ginns, P., & Kember, D. (2008). Examining the cultural specificity of approaches to learning in Universities in Hong Kong and Sydney. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39, 251-266.
Leung, D., Ginns, P., & Kember, D. (2008). 考察香港和悉尼大学学习方法的文化特异性。《跨文化心理学杂志》，39，251-266。
Leung, M., Lu, X., Chen, D., & Lu, M. (2008). Impacts of teaching approaches on learning approaches of construction engineering students: A comparative study between Hong Kong and Mainland China. Journal of Engineering Education, 135-145.
Leung, M., Lu, X., Chen, D., & Lu, M. (2008). 教学方法对建筑工程学生学习方法的影响：香港与中国大陆的比较研究。《工程教育杂志》，135-145。
Leung, S., Mok, E., & Wong, D. (2008). The impact of assessment methods on the learning of nursing students. Nurse Education Today, 28, 711-719.
Leung, S., Mok, E., & Wong, D. (2008). 评估方法对护理学生学习的影响。护理教育今日，28，711-719。
Lizzio, A., Wilson, K., & Simons, R. (2002). University students’ perceptions of the learning environment and academic outcomes: Implications for theory and practice. Studies in Higher Education, 27, 27-52.
Lizzio, A., Wilson, K., & Simons, R. (2002). 大学生对学习环境和学业成果的看法：对理论和实践的启示。高等教育研究，27，27-52。
Lonka, K., Olkinuora, E., & Mäkinen, J. (2004). Aspects and prospects of measuring studying and learning in higher education. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 301-323.
Lonka, K., Olkinuora, E., & Mäkinen, J. (2004). 高等教育中学习和学习测量的方面与前景。教育心理学评论, 16(4), 301-323.
Marton, F. (1976). On non-verbatim learning. II. The erosion of a task induced learning algorithm. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 17, 41-48.
Marton, F. (1976). 关于非逐字学习。II. 任务诱导学习算法的侵蚀。斯堪的纳维亚心理学杂志，17，41-48。
Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1997). Approaches to learning. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell, & N. Entwistle (Eds.), The experience of learning. Implications for teaching and studying in higher education (2nd ed., pp. 39-58). Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.
Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1997). 学习方法. 在 F. Marton, D. Hounsell, & N. Entwistle (编辑), 学习的体验. 对高等教育教学和学习的启示 (第 2 版, pp. 39-58). 爱丁堡: 苏格兰学术出版社.
Mattick, K., Dennis, I., & Bligh, J. (2004). Approaches to learning and studying in medical students: Validation of a revised inventory and its relation to student characteristics and performance. Medical Education, 38, 535-543.
Mattick, K., Dennis, I., & Bligh, J. (2004). 医学生的学习和研究方法：修订清单的验证及其与学生特征和表现的关系。医学教育, 38, 535-543.
Mayer, R. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59(1), 14-19.
Mayer, R. (2004). 是否应该对纯发现学习实施三次出局规则？指导性教学方法的案例。美国心理学家，59(1)，14-19。
McParland, M., Noble, L. M., & Livingston, G. (2004). The effectiveness of problem-based learning compared to traditional teaching in undergraduate psychiatry. Medical Education, 38, 859-867.
McParland, M., Noble, L. M., & Livingston, G. (2004). 基于问题的学习与传统教学在本科精神病学中的有效性比较。医学教育, 38, 859-867。
Minbashian, A., Huon, G. F., & Bird, K. D. (2004). Approaches to studying and academic performance in short-essay exams. Higher Education, 47, 161-176.
Minbashian, A., Huon, G. F., & Bird, K. D. (2004). 研究短文考试中的学习方法和学业表现。高等教育, 47, 161-176.
Nijhuis, J., Segers, M., & Gijselaers, W. (2005). Influence of redesigning a learning environment on student perceptions and learning strategies. Learning Environments Research, 8, 67-93.
Nijhuis, J., Segers, M., & Gijselaers, W. (2005). 重新设计学习环境对学生感知和学习策略的影响。学习环境研究, 8, 67-93.
Nijhuis, J., Segers, M., & Gijselaers, W. (2008). The extent of variability in learning strategies and students’ perceptions of the learning environment. Learning and Instruction, 18, 121-134.
Nijhuis, J., Segers, M., & Gijselaers, W. (2008). 学习策略的变异程度与学生对学习环境的感知。学习与教学，18，121-134。
Papinczak, T. (2009). Are deep strategic learners better suited to PBL? A preliminary study. Advances in Health Science Education, 14, 337 -353.
Papinczak, T. (2009). 深度战略学习者更适合问题导向学习吗？一项初步研究。《健康科学教育进展》，14，337 -353。
Papinczak, T., Young, L., Groves, M., & Haynes, M. (2008). Effects of a metacognitive intervention on students’ approaches to learning and self-efficacy in a first year medical course. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 13, 213-232.
Papinczak, T., Young, L., Groves, M., & Haynes, M. (2008). 一项元认知干预对学生学习方法和自我效能的影响：以第一年医学课程为例。《健康科学教育进展》，13，213-232。
Phan, H. P. (2007). An Examination of reflective thinking, learning approaches, and self-efficacy beliefs at the university of the South-Pacific: A path analysis approach. Educational Psychology, 27(6), 789-806.
Phan, H. P. (2007). 对南太平洋大学的反思性思维、学习方法和自我效能信念的研究：一种路径分析方法。教育心理学，27(6)，789-806。
Pimparyon, P., Roff, S., McAleer, S., Poonchai, B., & Pemba, S. (2000). Educational environment, student approaches to learning and academic achievement in a Thai nursing school. Medical Teacher, 22(4), 359-364.
Pimparyon, P., Roff, S., McAleer, S., Poonchai, B., & Pemba, S. (2000). 泰国护理学校的教育环境、学生学习方式与学业成就。医学教师，22(4)，359-364。
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223-231.
Prince, M. (2004). 主动学习有效吗？研究综述。《工程教育杂志》，93(3)，223-231。
Reid, W., Duvall, E., & Evans, P. (2005). Can we influence medical students’ approaches to learning? Medical Teacher, 27(5), 401-407.
Reid, W., Duvall, E., & Evans, P. (2005). 我们能影响医学生的学习方法吗？医学教师, 27(5), 401-407.
Richardson, J. (1995). Cultural specificity of approaches to studying in higher education: A comparative investigation using the approaches to studying inventory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55, 300-308.
Richardson, J. (1995). 高等教育学习研究方法的文化特异性：使用学习方法清单的比较研究。教育与心理测量，55，300-308。
Richardson, J. (2004). Methodological issues in questionnaire-based research on student learning in higher education. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 347-358.
Richardson, J. (2004). 基于问卷的高等教育学生学习研究中的方法论问题。教育心理学评论, 16(4), 347-358.
Richardson, J., Dawson, L., Sadlo, G., Jenkins, V., & McInnes, J. (2007). Perceived academic quality and approaches to studying in the health professions. Medical Teacher, 29, 108-116.
Richardson, J., Dawson, L., Sadlo, G., Jenkins, V., & McInnes, J. (2007). 感知的学术质量与健康专业的学习方法。医学教师, 29, 108-116.
Richardson, J. T. E., Morgan, A., & Woodley, A. (1999). Approaches to studying in distance education. Higher Education, 37, 23-55.
Richardson, J. T. E., Morgan, A., & Woodley, A. (1999). 远程教育学习的方法. 高等教育, 37, 23-55.
Rodriguez, C. (2009). The impact of academic self-concept, expectations and the choice of learning strategy on academic achievement: The case of business students. Higher Education Research and Development, 28(5), 523-539.
Rodriguez, C. (2009). 学术自我概念、期望和学习策略选择对学业成就的影响：以商科学生为例。高等教育研究与发展，28(5)，523-539。
Sadler-Smith, E. (1996). Approaches to studying: Age, gender and academic performance. Educational Studies, 22(3), 367-379.
Sadler-Smith, E. (1996). 学习方法：年龄、性别与学业表现。教育研究，22(3)，367-379。
Säljö, R. (1975). Qualitative differences in learning as a function of the learner’s conception of a task. Gothenburg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
Säljö, R. (1975). 学习的定性差异作为学习者对任务的理解的一个函数。哥德堡：哥德堡大学学报。
Sambell, K., McDowell, L., & Brown, S. (1997). ‘But is it fair?’: An exploratory study of student perceptions of the consequential validity of assessment. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 23(4), 349-371.
Sambell, K., McDowell, L., & Brown, S. (1997). ‘但这公平吗？’：一项关于学生对评估结果有效性看法的探索性研究。《教育评估研究》，23(4)，349-371。
Schultz, N., & Christensen, H. (2004). Seven-step problem-based learning in an interaction design course. European Journal of Engineering Education, 29(4), 533-541.
Schultz, N., & Christensen, H. (2004). 七步问题导向学习在交互设计课程中的应用。欧洲工程教育杂志, 29(4), 533-541。

Scouller, K. (1998). The influence of assessment method on students’ learning approaches: Multiple choice question examination versus assignment essay. Higher Education, 35, 453-472.
Scouller, K. (1998). 评估方法对学生学习方式的影响：选择题考试与作业论文。高等教育, 35, 453-472。
Segers, M., Gijbels, D., & Thurlings, M. (2008). The relationship between students’ perceptions of portfolio assessment practice and their approaches to learning. Educational Studies, 34(1), 35-44.
Segers, M., Gijbels, D., & Thurlings, M. (2008). 学生对作品集评估实践的看法与他们的学习方式之间的关系。教育研究，34(1)，35-44。
Segers, M., Martens, R., & Van den Bossche, P. (2008). Understanding how a case-based assessment instrument influences student teachers’ learning approaches. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(7), 1751-1764.
Segers, M., Martens, R., & Van den Bossche, P. (2008). 理解案例基础评估工具如何影响学生教师的学习方式。教学与教师教育, 24(7), 1751-1764。
Segers, M., Nijhuis, J., & Gijselaers, W. (2006). Redesigning a learning and assessment environment: The influence on students’ perceptions of assessment demands and their learning strategies. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 32, 223-242.
Segers, M., Nijhuis, J., & Gijselaers, W. (2006). 重新设计学习和评估环境：对学生评估要求感知和学习策略的影响。《教育评估研究》，32，223-242。
Sivan, A., Wong Leung, R., Woon, C., & Kember, D. (2000). An implementation of active learning and its effect on the quality of student learning. Innovations in Education and Training International, 34(4), 381-389.
Sivan, A., Wong Leung, R., Woon, C., & Kember, D. (2000). 主动学习的实施及其对学生学习质量的影响。国际教育与培训创新，34(4)，381-389。
Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Slavin, R. E. (1995). 合作学习：理论、研究与实践（第 2 版）。恩格尔伍德悬崖，新泽西州：普伦蒂斯霍尔。
Smith, S. N., & Miller, R. J. (2005). Learning approaches: Examination type, discipline of study, and gender. Educational Psychology, 25(1), 43-53.
Smith, S. N., & Miller, R. J. (2005). 学习方法：考试类型、学习学科和性别。教育心理学, 25(1), 43-53.
Sobral, D. (2001). Medical students’ reflection in learning in relation to approaches to study and academic achievement. Medical Teacher, 23(5), 508-513.
Sobral, D. (2001). 医学生在学习中对学习方法和学业成就的反思。医学教师，23(5)，508-513。
Struyven, K., Dochy, F., Janssens, S., & Gielen, S. (2006). On the dynamics of students’ approaches to learning: The effects of the teaching/learning environment. Learning and Instruction, 16, 279-294.
Struyven, K., Dochy, F., Janssens, S., & Gielen, S. (2006). 关于学生学习方式的动态：教学/学习环境的影响。学习与教学, 16, 279-294.
Svirko, E., & Mellanby, J. (2008). Attitudes to e-learning, learning style and achievement in learning neuroanatomy by medical students. Medical Teacher, 30, 219-227.
Svirko, E., & Mellanby, J. (2008). 医学生对电子学习、学习风格和神经解剖学学习成就的态度。医学教师，30，219-227。
Swanberg, A., & Martinsen, O. (2010). Personality, approaches to learning and achievement. Educational Psychology, 30(1), 75-88.
Swanberg, A., & Martinsen, O. (2010). 个性、学习方法与成就。教育心理学，30(1)，75-88。
Tait, H., & Entwistle, N. J. (1996). Identifying students at risk through ineffective study strategies. Higher Education, 31(1), 97-116.
Tait, H., & Entwistle, N. J. (1996). 通过无效的学习策略识别有风险的学生。高等教育, 31(1), 97-116.
Tait, H., Entwistle, N. J., & McCune, V. (1998). ASSIST: A reconceptualisation of the approaches to studying inventory. In C. Rust (Ed.), Improving student learning: Improving students as learners. Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development.
Tait, H., Entwistle, N. J., & McCune, V. (1998). ASSIST: 一种对学习库存研究方法的重新概念化。收录于 C. Rust (编)，改善学生学习：提高学生作为学习者的能力。牛津：牛津员工与学习发展中心。
Tetik, C., Gurpinar, E., & Bati, H. (2009). Students’ learning approaches at medical schools applying different curricula in Turkey. Kuwait Medical Journal, 41(4), 311-316.
Tetik, C., Gurpinar, E., & Bati, H. (2009). 土耳其不同课程的医学院学生学习方法。科威特医学杂志, 41(4), 311-316.
Thomas, C., & Gadbois, S. (2007). Academic self-handicapping: The role of self-concept clarity and students’ learning strategies. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 101-119.
托马斯，C.，& 加德博伊斯，S.（2007）。学术自我设障：自我概念清晰度和学生学习策略的作用。《英国教育心理学杂志》，77，101-119。
Tiwari, A., Chan, S., Wong, E., Wong, D., Chui, C., Wong, A., et al. (2006). The effect of problem-based learning on students’ approaches to learning in the context of clinical nursing education. Nurse Education Today, 26, 430-438.
Tiwari, A., Chan, S., Wong, E., Wong, D., Chui, C., Wong, A., 等. (2006). 基于问题的学习对临床护理教育中学生学习方法的影响. 护理教育今日, 26, 430-438.
Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1991a). Improving the quality of student learning: The influence of learning context and student approaches to learning on learning outcomes. Higher Education, 22, 251-266.
Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1991a). 提高学生学习质量：学习环境和学生学习方式对学习成果的影响。高等教育, 22, 251-266。
Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1991b). Relating approaches to study and quality of learning outcomes at the course level. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 61(3), 265-275.
Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1991b). 课程层面学习方法与学习成果质量的关系. 英国教育心理学杂志, 61(3), 265-275.
Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Waterhouse, F. (1999). Relations between teachers’ approaches to teaching and students’ approaches to learning. Higher Education, 37,57-70.
Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Waterhouse, F. (1999). 教师教学方法与学生学习方法之间的关系。高等教育, 37, 57-70.
Tural Dincer, G., & Akdeniz, A. (2008). Examining learning approaches of science student teachers according to the class level and gender.US-China Education Review, 5(12), 54-59.
Tural Dincer, G., & Akdeniz, A. (2008). 根据班级水平和性别研究科学学生教师的学习方法。美国-中国教育评论, 5(12), 54-59.
Valk, A., & Marandi, T. (2005). How to support deep learning at a university? In F. E. H. Tay, T. S. Chuan, & S. Han-Ming (Eds.), Proceedings of the international conference on education 2005. National University of Singapore.
Valk, A., & Marandi, T. (2005). 如何在大学支持深度学习？在 F. E. H. Tay, T. S. Chuan, & S. Han-Ming (编辑) 的《2005 年国际教育会议论文集》。新加坡国立大学。
Vanthournout, G., Donche, V., Gijbels, D., & Van Petegem, P. (2009). Alternative data-analysis techniques in research on student learning: Illustrations of a person-oriented and developmental perspectives. Reflecting Education, 5(2), 35-51.
Vanthournout, G., Donche, V., Gijbels, D., & Van Petegem, P. (2009). 学生学习研究中的替代数据分析技术：以以人为本和发展视角为例。反思教育, 5(2), 35-51.
Waters, L., & Johnston, C. (2004). Web-delivered, problem-based learning in organisational behaviour: A new form of CAOS. Higher Education Research and Development, 23(4), 413-431.
Waters, L., & Johnston, C. (2004). 网络交付的基于问题的学习在组织行为中的应用：一种新的 CAOS 形式。高等教育研究与发展, 23(4), 413-431.
Watkins, D., & Regmi, M. (1990). An investigation of the approach to learning of Nepalese tertiary students. Higher Education, 20(4), 459-469.
Watkins, D., & Regmi, M. (1990). 尼泊尔高等教育学生学习方法的研究。高等教育, 20(4), 459-469.
Wilson, J. (2009). A two factor model of performance approach goals in student motivation for starting medical school. Issues in Educational Research, 19(3), 271-281.
威尔逊，J.（2009）。学生进入医学院动机的表现目标双因素模型。《教育研究问题》，19(3)，271-281。
Wilson, K., & Fowler, J. (2005). Assessing the impact of learning environments on students’ approaches to learning: Comparing conventional and action learning designs. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(1), 87-101.
Wilson, K., & Fowler, J. (2005). 评估学习环境对学生学习方式的影响：比较传统与行动学习设计。高等教育评估与评价，30(1)，87-101。
Wilson, K. L., Lizzio, A., & Ramsden, P. (1997). The development, validation and appreciation of the Course Experience Questionnaire. Studies in Higher Education, 22, 33-53.
Wilson, K. L., Lizzio, A., & Ramsden, P. (1997). 课程体验问卷的开发、验证和评估。高等教育研究, 22, 33-53.
Wilson, K. L., Smart, R. M., & Watson, R. J. (1996). Gender differences in approaches to learning in first year psychology students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 59-71.
Wilson, K. L., Smart, R. M., & Watson, R. J. (1996). 性别差异在第一年心理学学生学习方法中的表现。英国教育心理学杂志, 66, 59-71.
Wong, D., & Lam, D. (2007). Problem-based learning in social work: A study of student learning outcomes. Research on Social Work Practice, 17, 55-65.
Wong, D., & Lam, D. (2007). 基于问题的学习在社会工作中的应用：学生学习成果的研究。《社会工作实践研究》，17，55-65。
Yin, L. (1999). A longitudinal study of Hong Kong Chinese university students’ academic causal attributions, self-concept, learning approaches, and their causal effects on achievement. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
尹, L. (1999). 一项关于香港中国大学生学业因果归因、自我概念、学习方式及其对成就的因果影响的纵向研究。论文在加拿大魁北克省蒙特利尔举行的美国教育研究协会年会上发表。
Zeegers, P. (2001). Approaches to learning in science: A longitudinal study. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 115-132.
Zeegers, P. (2001). 科学学习方法：一项纵向研究。英国教育心理学杂志，71，115-132。
Zeegers, P. (2002). A revision of the Biggs Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ). Higher Education Research and Development, 21, 73-92.
Zeegers, P. (2002). 对 Biggs 学习过程问卷（R-SPQ）的修订。高等教育研究与发展，21，73-92。
Zeegers, P. (2004). Student learning in higher education: A path analysis of academic achievement in science. Higher Education Research and Development, 23(1), 35-56.
Zeegers, P. (2004). 高等教育中的学生学习：科学学业成就的路径分析。高等教育研究与发展，23(1)，35-56。
Zhang, L., & Watkins, D. (2001). Cognitive development and student approaches to learning: An investigation of Perry’s theory with Chinese and U.S. university students. Higher Education, 41, 239-261.
Zhang, L., & Watkins, D. (2001). 认知发展与学生学习方式：对佩里的理论在中国和美国大学生中的研究。高等教育，41，239-261。
Zhang, L. F. (2003). Does the big five predict learning approaches? Personality and Individual Differences, 34(8), 1431-1446.
Zhang, L. F. (2003). 大五人格是否能预测学习方式？个性与个体差异, 34(8), 1431-1446.