You are here

Learning Strategies of Successful and Unsuccessful University Students

Journal Name:

Publication Year:

Abstract (2. Language): 
The purpose of this study was to assess the most commonly used learning strategies of undergraduate students and how these strategies were related to their academic performance. Toward this purpose, a 60 item Likert scale was administered to a sample of 278 undergraduate students. The students were selected based on their cumulative grand-point-average as the most successful and the least successful five senior-year students from each majoring area in the faculties of arts, engineering, science, communication, and sports. The Cronbach’s Alpha reliability coefficient of the scale was 0,93. Results showed that successful students used more, varied, and better learning strategies than unsuccessful students. Female students were more effective in selecting and using appropriate strategies than male students. There were a variety of differences among fields of study; students of fine arts used the strategies least, while students of sports used them the most. The most preferred group of strategies was metacognitive strategies, whereas the least preferred group was organization strategies. The same pattern was found for the level of success, gender, and field of study. The results overall imply that certain strategies contribute to student performance more than other strategies, and majority of university students are aware of this situation.



Braten, I. & Olaussen, B. S. (1998). The relationship between motivational beliefs and learning strategy use among Norwegian college students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 182-194.
Cho, S. & Ahn, D. (2003). Strategy acquisition and maintenance of gifted and non-gifted young children. Council for Exceptional Children, 69(4), 497-505.
Eshel, Y. & Kohavi, R. (2003). Perceived classroom control, self-regulated learning strategies, and academic achievement. Educational Psychology, 23(3), 249-260.
Garner, R. (1990). When children and adults do not use learning strategies: Toward a theory and settings. Review of Educational Research, 60(4), 517-529.
Gu, P. Y. (2005). Learning strategies: Prototypical core and dimensions of variation (Working paper No: 10). Nanyang Technological University National Institute of Education Centre for Research in Pedagogy and Practice. China.
Hooper, S., Sales, G., Rysavy, S. D. (1994). Generating summaries and analogies alone and in pairs. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(1), 53-62.
McWhaw, K. & Abrami, P. C. (2991). Student goal orientation and interest: Effects on students’ use of self-regulated learning strategies. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 311-329.
Milano, M. & Ullius, D. (1998). Designing powerful training: The sequential-iterative model. San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass/Pfeiffer.
Paris, S. B. & Myers, M. (1981). Comprehension monitoring, memory, and study strategies of good and poor readers. Journal of Reading Behavior, 13(1), 5-22.
Simsek, A. (2006). Bilissel stratejilerin ogretimi [Teaching cognitive strategies]. In A. Simsek (Ed.), Icerik turlerine dayali ogretim (pp.181-208). Ankara: Nobel.
Sizoo, S., Molhatro, N. K, & Bearson, J. M. (2003). Preparing students for a distance learning environment: A comparison of learning strategies of in-class and distance learners. Educational Technology Systems, 31(3), 261-273.
Tait, H. & Entwistle, N. J. (1996). Identifying students at risk through ineffective study strategies. Higher Education, 31, 97-116.
Wade, S. E. & Trathen, W. (1989). Effects of self-selected study methods on learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(1), 40-47.
Weistein, C. E. (1987). Fostering learning autonomy through the use of learning strategies. Journal of Reading, 30(7), 590-595.
Weinstein, C. E. & Mayer, R. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp.315-327). New York: Macmillan.
Wittrock, M. C. & Alessandrini, K. (1990). Generation of summaries and analogies and analytic and holistic abilities. American Educational Research Journal, 27(3), 489-502.

Thank you for copying data from