Undergraduate and Postgraduate Students’ Approaches to Learning Organic Chemistry: Gender and Level-Based Variations

Philip Dorsah; Moses Abdullai Abukari; Thomas Nipielim Tindan; Alaric Awingura Alagbela

doi:doi:10.11648/j.edu.20251406.17

Research Article |

| Peer-Reviewed

Undergraduate and Postgraduate Students’ Approaches to Learning Organic Chemistry: Gender and Level-Based Variations

Philip Dorsah^*

, Moses Abdullai Abukari

, Thomas Nipielim Tindan

, Alaric Awingura Alagbela

Published in Education Journal (Volume 14, Issue 6)

Received: 26 November 2025 Accepted: 9 December 2025 Published: 30 December 2025

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

This study explored students’ approaches to learning organic chemistry across multiple academic levels to understand how learning orientations evolve as students progress through their programmes. A quantitative cross-sectional survey design was adopted, involving a purposive sample of 36 students comprising 28 males and 8 females. The participants included 17 Level 200 students, 6 Level 300 students, 5 Level 400 students, and 8 postgraduate students. Data were collected using the Revised Two-Factor Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F), which measures deep and surface motives and strategies. Descriptive analyses showed that postgraduate students predominantly adopted a deep approach to learning, characterized by strong intrinsic motivation, reflective engagement, and the use of integrative learning strategies. Similarly, Level 400 students demonstrated a greater tendency toward deep motives and strategies compared with students at Levels 200 and 300, who were more inclined to rely on surface motives such as rote memorization and minimal-effort strategies. Despite these observable patterns across levels, inferential statistical analyses revealed no significant differences in learning approaches by academic level or gender. These findings suggest that while progressive exposure to advanced chemistry content may encourage deeper engagement, students across levels continue to rely differently on both deep and surface approaches. The study recommends that chemistry educators and curriculum designers incorporate conceptual change pedagogies, scientific reasoning tasks, modeling activities, interdisciplinary connections, and context-rich instructional strategies to foster deeper, more meaningful, and transferable learning in organic chemistry.

Published in	Education Journal (Volume 14, Issue 6)
DOI	10.11648/j.edu.20251406.17
Page(s)	325-336
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2025. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Approaches to Learning, Organic Chemistry, Deep Learning, Surface Learning, Conceptual Change, Chemistry Education, Tertiary Science Education, Learning Strategies

References

[1]	OECD. (2010). Educational research and innovation: The nature of learning—Using research to inspire practice. OECD Publishing. www.oecd.org/education/ceri/50300814.pdf
[2]	Nordin, N., Wahab, R. A., & Dahlan, N. A. (2013). Approaches to learning among trainee teachers: Malaysian experiences. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 105, 284–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.11.030
[3]	Bunce, L., & Bennett, M. (2019). A degree of studying? Approaches to learning and academic performance among student consumers. Active Learning in Higher Education, 22(3), 203–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787419860204
[4]	Bälter, O., Cleveland-Innes, M., Pettersson, K., Scheja, M., & Svedin, M. (2013). Student approaches to learning in relation to online course completion. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 43(3), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.47678/cjhe.v43i3.184673
[5]	Tolga, E., & Emrah, O. (2018). An investigation of learning approaches and language learning strategies: Are they related? European Journal of Education Studies, 4(1), 91–101. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1320506
[6]	Bustamante, A. S., White, L. J., & Greenfield, D. B. (2017). Approaches to learning and school readiness in Head Start: Applications to preschool science. Learning and Individual Differences, 56, 112–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.10.012
[7]	Bustamante, A. S., White, L. J., & Greenfield, D. B. (2018). Approaches to learning and science education in Head Start: Examining bidirectionality. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 44, 34–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.02.013
[8]	Entwistle, N. (2009). Teaching for understanding at university: Deep approaches and distinctive ways of thinking. Palgrave Macmillan. https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/teaching-for-understanding-at-university-9781137091062/
[9]	Entwistle, N. J., Tait, H., & McCune, V. (2000). Patterns of response to an approaches to studying inventory across contrasting groups and contexts. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 15(1), 33–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173165
[10]	Entwistle, N. J., McCune, V., & Tait, H. (2013). Approaches and study skills inventory for students (ASSIST): Report of the development and use of the inventories. http://www.researchgate.net/publication/260291730_Approaches_and_Study_Skills_Inventory_for_Students_(ASSIST)_(incorporating_the_Revised_Approaches_to_Studying_Inventory_-_RASI)
[11]	Entwistle, N., & McCune, V. (2004). The conceptual bases of study strategy inventories. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 325–345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-004-0003-0
[12]	Diseth, Å. (2003). Personality and approaches to learning as predictors of academic achievement. European Journal of Personality, 17(2), 143–155. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.469
[13]	Diseth, A., & Martinsen, O. (2003). Approaches to learning, cognitive style, and motives as predictors of academic achievement. Educational Psychology, 23(2), 195–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410303225
[14]	Richardson, M., Abraham, C., & Bond, R. (2012). Psychological correlates of university students’ academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138(2), 353–387. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026838
[15]	Englund, H., Stockhult, H., Du Rietz, S., Nilsson, A., & Wennblom, G. (2022). Learning-environment uncertainty and students’ approaches to learning: A self-determination theory perspective. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 66(6), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2022.2042734
[16]	Öhrstedt, M., & Lindfors, P. (2019). First-semester students’ capacity to predict academic achievement as related to approaches to learning. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 43(10), 1420–1432. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2018.14909500
[17]	Fraser, B. J. (1998). The birth of a new journal: Editor’s introduction. Learning Environments Research, 1(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009994030661
[18]	Faranda, W. T., Clarke, T. B., & Clarke, I. (2021). Marketing student perceptions of academic program quality and relationships to surface, deep, and strategic learning approaches. Journal of Marketing Education, 43(1), 9–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475320939261
[19]	Postareff, L., Mattsson, M., & Parpala, A. (2018). The effect of perceptions of the teaching-learning environment on the variation in approaches to learning: Between-student differences and within-student variation. Learning and Individual Differences, 68, 96–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2018.10.006
[20]	Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (2014). Qualitative variation in approaches to university teaching and learning in large first-year classes. Higher Education, 67(6), 783–795. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-013-9690-0
[21]	Päuler-Kuppinger, L., & Jucks, R. (2017). Perspectives on teaching: Conceptions of teaching and epistemological beliefs of university academics and students in different domains. Active Learning in Higher Education, 18(1), 63–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787417693507
[22]	Tomas, C., & Jessop, T. (2019). Struggling and juggling: A comparison of student assessment loads across research and teaching-intensive universities. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463355
[23]	Chiesi, F., Primi, C., Bilgin, A. A., Lopez, M. V., del Carmen Fabrizio, M., Gozlu, S., & Tuan, N. M. (2016). Measuring university students’ approaches to learning statistics: An invariance study. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 34(3), 256–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282915596125
[24]	Lucas, U. (2001). Deep and surface approaches to learning within introductory accounting: A phenomenographic study. Accounting Education, 10(2), 161–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639280110073443
[25]	Entwistle, N. J., & Peterson, E. R. (2004). Conceptions of learning and knowledge in higher education: Relationships with study behaviour and influences of learning environments. International Journal of Educational Research, 41(6), 407–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2005.08.009
[26]	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(1), 43–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787407086745
[27]	Shaari, R., Bahari, S. F., Nordin, N. A., Rahim, K. A., Rajab, A., & Hanafiah, M. H. F. (2011). An application of role identity theory to foster academics’ creativity in a research university. International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanity Studies, 3(1), 375–384. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/ijsshs/issue/26221/276185
[28]	Mitra, M. (2020). Organic Chemistry to Treat Diseases. Journal of Heterocyclics, 2(1), 1-2. https://doi.org/10.33805/2639-6734.108
[29]	Smith, M. (2023). Organic Chemistry: An Acid–Base Approach (3^rd Ed.). https://api.pageplace.de/preview/DT0400.9781000601312_A42943847/preview-9781000601312_A42943847.pdf
[30]	Fang, B., Chen, L., Pang, S., & Zhang, B. (2024). Reforming Organic Chemistry Laboratory Teaching in the Context of Emerging Engineering Disciplines: Strategies and Impacts. Curriculum and Teaching Methodology. https://doi.org/10.23977/curtm.2024.070727
[31]	Patel, A., Arik, M., & Sarkar, A. (2024). An Undergraduate Laboratory Module Integrating Organic Chemistry and Polymer Science. Journal of Chemical Education, 101, 1686 - 1695. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c01194
[32]	Odeleye, O., & Tieu, N. (2025). Students’ & Faculty Members’ Attitudes Towards Learning and Teaching Reaction Mechanisms in Organic Chemistry. Education Sciences. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15030357
[33]	Salame, I., & Khalil, A. (2023). Examining some of the challenges students face in learning about rearrangement reactions in organic chemistry. Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education. https://doi.org/10.29333/ijese/13203
[34]	Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning: II — Outcome as a function of the learner’s conception of the task. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46(2), 115–127. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1976.tb02304.x
[35]	McLoone, P., & Oluwadun, A. (2012). Deep approaches to learning in higher education. SpringerReference, 2(August), 110–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/springerreference302085
[36]	Entwistle, N. (1987). Understanding classroom learning. Hodder and Stoughton.
[37]	Ginns, P., Martin, A. J., Heffernan, A., & Taylor, C. (2014). What makes a “good teacher”? Exploring student and teacher perspectives on teaching quality in higher education. Australian Journal of Education, 58(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004944113517830
[38]	Biggs, J. (1993). What do inventories of students’ learning processes really measure? A theoretical review and clarification. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1993.tb01038.x
[39]	Kanashiro, P., Remington-Doucette, S., & Rios, A. M. (2019). Assessing student learning for sustainability: A review of the literature. Journal of Cleaner Production, 208, 1223–1233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.120
[40]	Warburton, K. (2003). Deep learning and education for sustainability. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 4(1), 44–56. https://doi.org/10.1108/14676370310455332
[41]	Setia, M. S. (2016). Methodology series module 3: Cross-sectional studies. Indian Journal of Dermatology, 61(3), 261–264. https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5154.182410
[42]	Hunziker, S., & Blankenagel, M. (2024). Cross-sectional research design. In Research Design in Business and Management (pp. 123–135). Springer Gabler. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-42739-9_10
[43]	Liang, Q., Yu, X., & An, S. (2020). [Influence of group sample size on statistical power of tests for quantitative data with an imbalanced design]. Journal of Southern Medical University, 40 5, 713-717. https://doi.org/10.12122/j.issn.1673-4254.2020.05.16
[44]	Rajput, D., Wang, W., & Chen, C. (2023). Evaluation of a decided sample size in machine learning applications. BMC Bioinformatics, 24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12859-023-05156-9
[45]	Biggs, J., Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. P. (2001). The revised two-factor Study Process Questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(1), 133–149. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709901158433
[46]	Lightburn, S., Medvedev, O., Henning, M., & Chen, Y. (2021). Investigating how students approach learning using generalizability theory. Higher Education Research & Development, 41, 1618 - 1632. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2021.1928002
[47]	Martinelli, V., & Raykov, M. (2017). Evaluation of the Revised Two-Factor Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F) for Student Teacher Approaches to Learning. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 7, 13 - 9. https://doi.org/10.5901/jesr.2017.v7n2p9
[48]	Zakariya, Y., Bjørkestøl, K., Nilsen, H., Goodchild, S., & Lorås, M. (2020). University students’ learning approaches: An adaptation of the revised two-factor study process questionnaire to Norwegian. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 64, 100816. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2019.100816
[49]	Taber, K. S. (2018). The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48(6), 1273–1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2
[50]	Viladrich, C., Angulo-Brunet, A., & Doval, E. (2017). A journey around alpha and omega to estimate internal consistency reliability. Anales de Psicología, 33(3), 755–782. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.33.3.268401
[51]	Cho, E., & Kim, S. (2015). Cronbach’s coefficient alpha: Well-known but poorly understood. Organizational Research Methods, 18(2), 207–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114555994
[52]	Trizano-Hermosilla, I., & Alvarado, J. M. (2016). Best alternatives to Cronbach’s alpha reliability in realistic conditions: Congeneric and asymmetrical measurements. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article 769. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00769
[53]	Desierto, A., De Maio, C., O’Rourke, J., & Sharp, S. (2018). Deep or surface? The learning approaches of enabling students in an Australian public university. Edith Cowan University. http://unistars.org/papers/STARS2018/05A.pdf
[54]	Chirikure, T., Govender, N., Sibanda, D., Kolobe, L., Good, M. A., & Ngema, S. (2019). Adding voices to physical sciences preservice teachers’ approaches to learning. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 23(2), 195–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/18117295.2019.1654211
[55]	Ilhan-Beyaztaş, D. (2019). What is the relationship between teaching approaches of instructors and learning approaches of teacher candidates? Asian Journal of University Education, 15(2), 63–77. https://doi.org/10.24191/ajue.v15i2.75577
[56]	Shah, D. K., Yadav, R. L., Sharma, D., Yadav, P. K., Sapkota, N. K., Jha, R. K., & Islam, M. N. (2016). Learning approach among health sciences students in a medical college in Nepal: A cross-sectional study. Advances in Medical Education and Practice, 7, 137–143. https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S100968
[57]	Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://books.google.com/books?id=RXs5AAAAIAA
[58]	Lakens, D. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, Article 863. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863
[59]	Pek, J., & Flora, D. B. (2018). Reporting effect sizes in educational research: A practical guide. Psychological Methods, 23(2), 208–225. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000126
[60]	Funder, D. C., & Ozer, D. J. (2019). Evaluating effect size in psychological research: Sense and nonsense. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2(2), 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245919847202
[61]	Al-Qahtani, M. H., & Higgins, S. E. (2022). Self-regulated learning and approaches to learning in higher education: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 37, 100463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100463
[62]	Barattucci, M., Pagliaro, S., Cafagna, D., & Bosetto, D. (2022). Deep and surface approaches to learning: A systematic review of the construct and its measurement. Educational Psychology Review, 34(3), 1503–1534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-022-09672-z

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Dorsah, P., Abukari, M. A., Tindan, T. N., Alagbela, A. A. (2025). Undergraduate and Postgraduate Students’ Approaches to Learning Organic Chemistry: Gender and Level-Based Variations. Education Journal, 14(6), 325-336. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.edu.20251406.17

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Dorsah, P.; Abukari, M. A.; Tindan, T. N.; Alagbela, A. A. Undergraduate and Postgraduate Students’ Approaches to Learning Organic Chemistry: Gender and Level-Based Variations. Educ. J. 2025, 14(6), 325-336. doi: 10.11648/j.edu.20251406.17

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Dorsah P, Abukari MA, Tindan TN, Alagbela AA. Undergraduate and Postgraduate Students’ Approaches to Learning Organic Chemistry: Gender and Level-Based Variations. Educ J. 2025;14(6):325-336. doi: 10.11648/j.edu.20251406.17

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.edu.20251406.17,
  author = {Philip Dorsah and Moses Abdullai Abukari and Thomas Nipielim Tindan and Alaric Awingura Alagbela},
  title = {Undergraduate and Postgraduate Students’ Approaches to Learning Organic Chemistry: Gender and Level-Based Variations},
  journal = {Education Journal},
  volume = {14},
  number = {6},
  pages = {325-336},
  doi = {10.11648/j.edu.20251406.17},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.edu.20251406.17},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.edu.20251406.17},
  abstract = {This study explored students’ approaches to learning organic chemistry across multiple academic levels to understand how learning orientations evolve as students progress through their programmes. A quantitative cross-sectional survey design was adopted, involving a purposive sample of 36 students comprising 28 males and 8 females. The participants included 17 Level 200 students, 6 Level 300 students, 5 Level 400 students, and 8 postgraduate students. Data were collected using the Revised Two-Factor Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F), which measures deep and surface motives and strategies. Descriptive analyses showed that postgraduate students predominantly adopted a deep approach to learning, characterized by strong intrinsic motivation, reflective engagement, and the use of integrative learning strategies. Similarly, Level 400 students demonstrated a greater tendency toward deep motives and strategies compared with students at Levels 200 and 300, who were more inclined to rely on surface motives such as rote memorization and minimal-effort strategies. Despite these observable patterns across levels, inferential statistical analyses revealed no significant differences in learning approaches by academic level or gender. These findings suggest that while progressive exposure to advanced chemistry content may encourage deeper engagement, students across levels continue to rely differently on both deep and surface approaches. The study recommends that chemistry educators and curriculum designers incorporate conceptual change pedagogies, scientific reasoning tasks, modeling activities, interdisciplinary connections, and context-rich instructional strategies to foster deeper, more meaningful, and transferable learning in organic chemistry.},
 year = {2025}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Undergraduate and Postgraduate Students’ Approaches to Learning Organic Chemistry: Gender and Level-Based Variations
AU  - Philip Dorsah
AU  - Moses Abdullai Abukari
AU  - Thomas Nipielim Tindan
AU  - Alaric Awingura Alagbela
Y1  - 2025/12/30
PY  - 2025
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.edu.20251406.17
DO  - 10.11648/j.edu.20251406.17
T2  - Education Journal
JF  - Education Journal
JO  - Education Journal
SP  - 325
EP  - 336
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2327-2619
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.edu.20251406.17
AB  - This study explored students’ approaches to learning organic chemistry across multiple academic levels to understand how learning orientations evolve as students progress through their programmes. A quantitative cross-sectional survey design was adopted, involving a purposive sample of 36 students comprising 28 males and 8 females. The participants included 17 Level 200 students, 6 Level 300 students, 5 Level 400 students, and 8 postgraduate students. Data were collected using the Revised Two-Factor Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F), which measures deep and surface motives and strategies. Descriptive analyses showed that postgraduate students predominantly adopted a deep approach to learning, characterized by strong intrinsic motivation, reflective engagement, and the use of integrative learning strategies. Similarly, Level 400 students demonstrated a greater tendency toward deep motives and strategies compared with students at Levels 200 and 300, who were more inclined to rely on surface motives such as rote memorization and minimal-effort strategies. Despite these observable patterns across levels, inferential statistical analyses revealed no significant differences in learning approaches by academic level or gender. These findings suggest that while progressive exposure to advanced chemistry content may encourage deeper engagement, students across levels continue to rely differently on both deep and surface approaches. The study recommends that chemistry educators and curriculum designers incorporate conceptual change pedagogies, scientific reasoning tasks, modeling activities, interdisciplinary connections, and context-rich instructional strategies to foster deeper, more meaningful, and transferable learning in organic chemistry.
VL  - 14
IS  - 6
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Philip Dorsah

Department of Science Education, University of Technology and Applied Sciences, Navrongo, Ghana

Contact Email

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3314-2203
Moses Abdullai Abukari

Department of Science Education, University of Technology and Applied Sciences, Navrongo, Ghana

Contact Email

http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7534-7867
Thomas Nipielim Tindan

Department of Science Education, University of Technology and Applied Sciences, Navrongo, Ghana

Contact Email

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4208-1617
Alaric Awingura Alagbela

Department of Science Education, University of Technology and Applied Sciences, Navrongo, Ghana

Contact Email

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1900-7961

Download PDF

Submit an Article

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Dorsah, P., Abukari, M. A., Tindan, T. N., Alagbela, A. A. (2025). Undergraduate and Postgraduate Students’ Approaches to Learning Organic Chemistry: Gender and Level-Based Variations. Education Journal, 14(6), 325-336. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.edu.20251406.17

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Dorsah, P.; Abukari, M. A.; Tindan, T. N.; Alagbela, A. A. Undergraduate and Postgraduate Students’ Approaches to Learning Organic Chemistry: Gender and Level-Based Variations. Educ. J. 2025, 14(6), 325-336. doi: 10.11648/j.edu.20251406.17

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Dorsah P, Abukari MA, Tindan TN, Alagbela AA. Undergraduate and Postgraduate Students’ Approaches to Learning Organic Chemistry: Gender and Level-Based Variations. Educ J. 2025;14(6):325-336. doi: 10.11648/j.edu.20251406.17

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.edu.20251406.17,
  author = {Philip Dorsah and Moses Abdullai Abukari and Thomas Nipielim Tindan and Alaric Awingura Alagbela},
  title = {Undergraduate and Postgraduate Students’ Approaches to Learning Organic Chemistry: Gender and Level-Based Variations},
  journal = {Education Journal},
  volume = {14},
  number = {6},
  pages = {325-336},
  doi = {10.11648/j.edu.20251406.17},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.edu.20251406.17},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.edu.20251406.17},
  abstract = {This study explored students’ approaches to learning organic chemistry across multiple academic levels to understand how learning orientations evolve as students progress through their programmes. A quantitative cross-sectional survey design was adopted, involving a purposive sample of 36 students comprising 28 males and 8 females. The participants included 17 Level 200 students, 6 Level 300 students, 5 Level 400 students, and 8 postgraduate students. Data were collected using the Revised Two-Factor Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F), which measures deep and surface motives and strategies. Descriptive analyses showed that postgraduate students predominantly adopted a deep approach to learning, characterized by strong intrinsic motivation, reflective engagement, and the use of integrative learning strategies. Similarly, Level 400 students demonstrated a greater tendency toward deep motives and strategies compared with students at Levels 200 and 300, who were more inclined to rely on surface motives such as rote memorization and minimal-effort strategies. Despite these observable patterns across levels, inferential statistical analyses revealed no significant differences in learning approaches by academic level or gender. These findings suggest that while progressive exposure to advanced chemistry content may encourage deeper engagement, students across levels continue to rely differently on both deep and surface approaches. The study recommends that chemistry educators and curriculum designers incorporate conceptual change pedagogies, scientific reasoning tasks, modeling activities, interdisciplinary connections, and context-rich instructional strategies to foster deeper, more meaningful, and transferable learning in organic chemistry.},
 year = {2025}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Undergraduate and Postgraduate Students’ Approaches to Learning Organic Chemistry: Gender and Level-Based Variations
AU  - Philip Dorsah
AU  - Moses Abdullai Abukari
AU  - Thomas Nipielim Tindan
AU  - Alaric Awingura Alagbela
Y1  - 2025/12/30
PY  - 2025
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.edu.20251406.17
DO  - 10.11648/j.edu.20251406.17
T2  - Education Journal
JF  - Education Journal
JO  - Education Journal
SP  - 325
EP  - 336
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2327-2619
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.edu.20251406.17
AB  - This study explored students’ approaches to learning organic chemistry across multiple academic levels to understand how learning orientations evolve as students progress through their programmes. A quantitative cross-sectional survey design was adopted, involving a purposive sample of 36 students comprising 28 males and 8 females. The participants included 17 Level 200 students, 6 Level 300 students, 5 Level 400 students, and 8 postgraduate students. Data were collected using the Revised Two-Factor Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F), which measures deep and surface motives and strategies. Descriptive analyses showed that postgraduate students predominantly adopted a deep approach to learning, characterized by strong intrinsic motivation, reflective engagement, and the use of integrative learning strategies. Similarly, Level 400 students demonstrated a greater tendency toward deep motives and strategies compared with students at Levels 200 and 300, who were more inclined to rely on surface motives such as rote memorization and minimal-effort strategies. Despite these observable patterns across levels, inferential statistical analyses revealed no significant differences in learning approaches by academic level or gender. These findings suggest that while progressive exposure to advanced chemistry content may encourage deeper engagement, students across levels continue to rely differently on both deep and surface approaches. The study recommends that chemistry educators and curriculum designers incorporate conceptual change pedagogies, scientific reasoning tasks, modeling activities, interdisciplinary connections, and context-rich instructional strategies to foster deeper, more meaningful, and transferable learning in organic chemistry.
VL  - 14
IS  - 6
ER  -

Copy | Download