Deep approaches to learning correlate positively and surface approaches negatively with academic achievement¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r2 · q2 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i2 Across nine studies of undergraduate nursing students, deep approaches to learning correlated positively with achievement (r = 0.26), while surface approaches correlated negatively (r = -0.25) across 11 studies. → John Hattie 2025

Evidence¶

John Hattie 2025¶

John Hattie, Timothy O'Leary. (2025). Learning Styles, Preferences, or Strategies? An Explanation for the Resurgence of Styles Across Many Meta-analyses. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-10002-w

q2 · i2 · review · r2

The review reports, citing Takase and Yoshida (2021), a meta-analysis of nursing students' learning approaches: positive correlation r = 0.26 for deep approaches (nine studies, N = 1830) and a statistically significant negative correlation r = -0.25 for surface approaches (11 studies, N = 2138).

"Summarizing findings from nine studies with 10 cohorts (N = 1830), they found a statistically significant positive correlation (r = 0.26) between academic achievement and deep approaches to learning and academic achievement."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Statistically significant differences in approaches to learning can constitute small effects of little theoretical or practical importance — related
• Both metacognitive awareness dimensions correlate positively with deep approach and organized studying and negatively with an unreflective approach — related
• Students who perceive teaching as good, and perceive clear goals, supportiveness and relevant courses, are more inclined towards a deep approach — related
• Students who perceive assessment demands as assessing deep, higher-level cognitive processing employ deep approaches, while those perceiving rote-recall demands employ surface approaches — related
• Correlational meta-analyses of learning styles and achievement average r = 0.24 but do not test or support the matching hypothesis — related