Application of The Learning Strategies and Motivation Questionnaire (LEMO) at the University: Reliability and Relation to First-year GPA

IF 0.8 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Erna Nauwelaerts, Sarah Doumen
{"title":"Application of The Learning Strategies and Motivation Questionnaire (LEMO) at the University: Reliability and Relation to First-year GPA","authors":"Erna Nauwelaerts, Sarah Doumen","doi":"10.5430/ijhe.v12n6p21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"As part of efforts to enhance academic achievement in higher education, incoming first-year students are becoming more and more subjected to surveys and assessments, e.g., regarding motivation and learning strategies. The Learning Strategies and Motivation Questionnaire (LEMO; Donche, Van Petegem, Van de Mosselaer, & Vermunt, 2010) is one of these surveys, applied mostly in professional bachelor programmes. The current study examines the reliability and predictive validity of the LEMO questionnaire in a sample of 416 first-year university students. All 13 scales were included in the study, i.e. Concrete Processing, Analysing, Memorising, Critical Processing, Relating-Structuring, External Regulation, Self-Regulation, Lack of Regulation, Amotivation, Controlled Motivation, Autonomous Motivation, Self-Efficacy, and Learning Together. In line with its reliability in previous studies, Cronbach’s alfa of most LEMO scales was below .70, which is the minimum threshold for scientific research, as was the Composite Reliability of eight of the 13 LEMO-scales. A confirmatory factor analysis showed that several factor loadings were below .70, resulting in an average variance extracted (AVE) below .50 for 11 of the 13 scales. Most scales had no or only a limited correlation to first-year GPA (FYGPA). Only Self-Efficacy and Analysing correlated ≥ .20 with FYGPA. These two scales explained 10.4% of the variance in study success. Hereby, Self-Efficacy is the most important predictor. The other 11 scales had no significant contribution to the prediction of academic performance in addition to Self-Efficacy and Analysing (ΔR2 = 3.4%, n.s.). Additional analyses showed that the correlation between the LEMO scales and FYGPA varied according to Bachelor programme.","PeriodicalId":43112,"journal":{"name":"Learning and Teaching-The International Journal of Higher Education in the Social Sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Learning and Teaching-The International Journal of Higher Education in the Social Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v12n6p21","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

As part of efforts to enhance academic achievement in higher education, incoming first-year students are becoming more and more subjected to surveys and assessments, e.g., regarding motivation and learning strategies. The Learning Strategies and Motivation Questionnaire (LEMO; Donche, Van Petegem, Van de Mosselaer, & Vermunt, 2010) is one of these surveys, applied mostly in professional bachelor programmes. The current study examines the reliability and predictive validity of the LEMO questionnaire in a sample of 416 first-year university students. All 13 scales were included in the study, i.e. Concrete Processing, Analysing, Memorising, Critical Processing, Relating-Structuring, External Regulation, Self-Regulation, Lack of Regulation, Amotivation, Controlled Motivation, Autonomous Motivation, Self-Efficacy, and Learning Together. In line with its reliability in previous studies, Cronbach’s alfa of most LEMO scales was below .70, which is the minimum threshold for scientific research, as was the Composite Reliability of eight of the 13 LEMO-scales. A confirmatory factor analysis showed that several factor loadings were below .70, resulting in an average variance extracted (AVE) below .50 for 11 of the 13 scales. Most scales had no or only a limited correlation to first-year GPA (FYGPA). Only Self-Efficacy and Analysing correlated ≥ .20 with FYGPA. These two scales explained 10.4% of the variance in study success. Hereby, Self-Efficacy is the most important predictor. The other 11 scales had no significant contribution to the prediction of academic performance in addition to Self-Efficacy and Analysing (ΔR2 = 3.4%, n.s.). Additional analyses showed that the correlation between the LEMO scales and FYGPA varied according to Bachelor programme.
学习策略与动机问卷(LEMO)在大学的应用:信度与一年级GPA的关系
作为提高高等教育学业成绩的努力的一部分,入学的一年级学生越来越多地成为调查和评估的对象,例如关于动机和学习策略的调查和评估。学习策略与动机调查问卷(LEMO)Donche, Van Petegem, Van de Mosselaer, &佛蒙特,2010)是其中一项调查,主要应用于专业学士课程。本研究以416名大学一年级学生为样本,检验了LEMO问卷的信度和预测效度。研究包括具体加工、分析、记忆、关键加工、关联结构、外部调节、自我调节、缺乏调节、动机、控制动机、自主动机、自我效能、共同学习等13个量表。与以往研究的信度一致,大多数LEMO量表的Cronbach 's alpha值低于0.70,这是科学研究的最低阈值,13个LEMO量表中有8个的复合信度低于0.70。验证性因子分析显示,几个因子负荷低于0.70,导致13个量表中有11个的平均方差提取(AVE)低于0.50。大多数量表与第一年的GPA (FYGPA)没有或只有有限的相关性。只有自我效能和分析与FYGPA相关≥0.20。这两个量表解释了10.4%的学习成功差异。因此,自我效能感是最重要的预测因子。除了自我效能和分析外,其他11个量表对学业成绩的预测没有显著贡献(ΔR2 = 3.4%, n.s.)。其他分析表明,LEMO量表与FYGPA之间的相关性因学士课程而异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
9.10%
发文量
13
审稿时长
14 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信