Page 26 - Secondary school students’ university readiness and their transition to university Els van Rooij

Introduction
Robbins et al., 2004). Furthermore, although it is o en claimed that in university 1 deep learning, e.g., critical and analytical thinking, should prevail over surface
learning, e.g., rote memorisation, both types are required (Beattie, Collins, &
McInnes, 2010). Writing essays, for example, calls for deep learning strategies,
whereas completing multiple choice exams involves, depending on the learning content, at least a certain amount of surface learning skills such as memorising. Research has found mixed results regarding the relationship between deep and surface learning and achievement. In some studies, no relationships were found; others, however, showed positive outcomes for deep learning (e.g., Furnham, Monsen, & Ahmetoglu, 2009), and/or negative results for surface learning (e.g., Richardson et al., 2012). Students who did not need to put much e ort into their schoolwork in secondary education may have not developed su cient cognitive and metacognitive strategies, which may cause them to struggle in university. Although research is not conclusive about the e ect of the relationship between deep and surface learning on achievement in university, we still take into account all four cognitive and metacognitive strategies in this thesis in order to nd out how they relate to student’s university readiness and success.
Student engagement (Chapters 4 and 5)
For success in education it seems a basic condition that a student is actively engaged, both physically (e.g., attending class) and mentally (e.g., concentrating and paying attention). Over the last decades, the concept of student engagement – i.e., involvement in and commitment to school (Landis & Reschly, 2013) – has gained substantial momentum in educational research on all levels – from primary up to higher education. Engagement is o en divided into three elements: behavioural engagement, cognitive engagement, and a ective (or emotional or psychological) engagement (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004). Behavioural engagement concerns the most visible part of engagement, as it consists of observable indicators like positive conduct, attendance, time on task, active participation (e.g., asking questions), and preparation (e.g., studying for tests and completing assignments) (Christenson, Stout, & Pohl, 2012; Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004). Cognitive engagement can be described as the quality of a student’s mental e ort that is directed toward learning (Newmann, Wehlage, & Lamborn, 1992), e.g., when making an assignment, is the student consciously trying to tackle a speci c problem or just thoughtlessly copying some sentences from the textbook? e metacognitive and cognitive strategies discussed in the previous
25