

ORIGINAL ARTICLE 

Year : 2017  Volume
: 3
 Issue : 2  Page : 100105 

The comparative consideration of the amount of applying learning strategies between successful and unsuccessful students
Mahboubeh Soleimanpour Omran
Department of Educational Management, Islamic Azad University, Bojnourd Branch, Bojnourd, Iran
Date of Web Publication  26Jul2017 
Correspondence Address: Mahboubeh Soleimanpour Omran Department of Educational Management, Bojnourd Branch, Islamic Azad University, Bojnourd Iran
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  Check 
DOI: 10.4103/23952296.204119
Aim: The purpose of this research is to compare the amount of applying learning strategies between successful and unsuccessful students of Islamic Azad University of Isfarayen. Methods: This research is collativecausative, and the statistics society of research concludes all the 500 successful and unsuccessful students of Islamic Azad University of Esfarayen in 2014. The whole statistics society of research was used to reach better and more exact results as a sample. Learning strategies and its basic concepts were measured by a standard questionnaire of learning strategies (Learning and Study Strategies Inventory), framed by Weinstein and Palmer (2002) was used for variable data collection of learning strategies and their main components The questionnaire had the range of 80–90% with the help of Cronbach alpha coefficient method, in dictating the validity and durability of mentioned questionnaire. The validity of this questionnaire has been previously approved and implemented the obtained data was analyzed by using descriptive statistics method (table, abundance, diagram) and inferential statistics (test, the analysis of variance, regression analysis). Results: The findings indicate that there is a meaningful difference between successful and unsuccessful students in case of using learning strategies and its basic components. Conclusions: There is no meaningful difference between the students of different fields in using the basic components of learning strategies. Furthermore, it was determined on the basis of the research that learning strategies cannot predict educational progression. Keywords: Educational failure, educational progression, learning components, learning strategies, successful students, unsuccessful students
How to cite this article: Omran MS. The comparative consideration of the amount of applying learning strategies between successful and unsuccessful students. Int J Educ Psychol Res 2017;3:1005 
How to cite this URL: Omran MS. The comparative consideration of the amount of applying learning strategies between successful and unsuccessful students. Int J Educ Psychol Res [serial online] 2017 [cited 2018 May 24];3:1005. Available from: http://www.ijeprjournal.org/text.asp?2017/3/2/100/204119 
Introduction   
Learning is a continuous current including variations almost permanent being hide in person's behavior.^{[1]} Many factors have role in facilitating this process including strategic process, the abilities of solving problems, understanding, control, selfadjustment, ultracognition, and learning strategies.^{[2]} Cognitive strategies are behavior, thoughts, or learner's action being used in the process of learning, and its aim is to help learning, organization and saving knowledge, skills, and the facilitation of using them in future.^{[3]} “Ultracognition” term is called our knowledge about our cognitive processes and their optimum usage to achieve learning purposes.^{[4]} In learning systems, there is less effort to teach better methods of learning.^{[4]} Every year educational failure is expensive and many students cannot succeed in educational substances ^{[5]} and because of lacking strategic skills of studying and learning, they have educational failure. Studying and learning strategies improve their educational function by facilitating students' learning process.^{[6]} Selfadjustment, selfcontrol, the identification of problem need to be taught.^{[7]} If students do not know to use which cognitive strategy in a special situation or when they can change it, they are not skillful learners.^{[8]} As university system is bookoriented and memoryoriented, it needs to learn studying methods, in other hand students' abilities in observing and controlling their thoughts is a complicated skill ^{[9]} and they should be trained as autonomous learners, and we should grow ultracognitive skills in them.^{[10]} The teaching of aware choosing of learning strategies can make smooth the process of making knowledge in them.^{[11]} Skillful learners know when they should act strategically.^{[12]} In a research doing by Salehi and Enayati ^{[13]} on the communication between the basic components of studying strategies and learning with students' educational progression the results show that there's a meaningful relationship between three basic components, i.e., skill, eagerness, and selfadjustment with students' educational progression and three basic components of studying strategies and learning were different in different groups of educational students. Bagher and Hossein ^{[14]} in a research doing on considering the relationship between motivated beliefs and selfadjustment learning strategies with highschool students' educational function showed that there's a relationship between selfadjustment learning strategies and students' educational success. Eunsook and Yvette ^{[15]} considered research on smart and ordinary students in motivated and cognitive characteristic. Results showed that these two groups are not in harmony with each other in case of motivated beliefs. However, they were different from each other in selfadjustment learning and ultracognitive strategies. Furthermore, smart students have higher proficiency and show higher average in ultracognitive, effort, and tact strategies in comparison to ordinary students.^{[16]} In a research on selfadjustment and conception composition in smart and ordinary students, it was determined that often ordinary students use cognitive strategies and express their (cognitive results) results with less eagerness, but smart students make more efforts in doing homework, Yip (2007)^{[16]} did a research in order to consider the difference between two student groups with high and low average in studying and learning strategies. The results show a meaningful difference in attitude and eagerness in two groups.^{[17]} In a research being done by Garner and Bandar (2010) on the consideration of relationship between educational habits, eagerness, gender, and education progression, its results show that there is a meaningful difference between five small criteria of learning, studying strategies questionnaire, and the average of sample class marks.^{[18]} The results of all researches indicate the importance of learning strategies. Considering that ineffective learning results in economic losses, in addition to disillusionment, decreasing selfconfidence, inferiority feeling, depression, and therefore not blooming of whole talents and abilities of failure person in education, therefore, the aim of this research is to identify the difference of applying the learning strategies between successful and unsuccessful students of Islamic Azad University of Esfarayen in 2014 and its minor aims are: (1) The identification of difference in applying the selfadjustment component of learning strategies between successful and unsuccessful, (2) the identification of difference in applying the skill of learning strategies in successful and unsuccessful students, (3) the identification of difference in applying the motivation of learning strategy in successful and unsuccessful students, (4) the identification of difference in applying basic components of learning strategies between students of different fields of university, and (5) the prediction of students' education progression via their learning strategies.
Methods   
This correlative research is causativecomparative being done by measurement method. The statistics society of this research concludes all the successful and unsuccessful students of different fields of Islamic Azad University of Esfarayen in 2014. Successful students conclude 16% of students with their whole average more than 84% of other students in a normal curve and unsuccessful students conclude with their whole average <84% of other students in normal curve. Considering that there are 500 students of different fields, therefore according to normal curve just 32% of these people will be measured as a research society being done with whole measurement method. The used tools in this research are: The consideration of documents and questionnaire, they were used in the part of field studies from 2^{nd} version standard questionnaire of studying and learning strategies. This questionnaire has eighty questions measuring concentration, data processing, the choosing of basic idea, studying strategy, selftesting, and testing strategies with a 5 item spectrum. The being standard questionnaire has been edited as a cognitive tool being concentrate on thoughts, behavior, attitudes, evident, and nonevident beliefs result in (reaching) success in learning. The questionnaire had the range of 80–90% with the help of Cronbach alpha coefficient method, in dictating the validity and durability of mentioned questionnaire. The validity of this questionnaire has been previously approved and implemented. Voyenshtain has obtained perpetuity coefficients of 77–89%. It was used from SPSS version 22 (IBM Company, USA) software, 2^{nd} edition to analyze data from descriptive and inferential statistics. It was used index such as average and abundance distribution tables and also it was used from parametric tests in considering research variations being distance numeral and in other hand, the result of Kolmogorov–Smirnov test (table) for inferential research tests, so it was used from ttest with independent sample, the analysis of 100 variance and also regression test for consideration the basis and inferior research hypotheses.
Results   
It was used from ttest with independent samples to consider the hypothesis of “measuring meaningful or nonmeaningful difference between applying learning strategies and the results have presented as following:”
Ttest or independent samples for considering the difference of average in applying learning strategies in successful and unsuccessful students as the obtained meaningful level 0.00 is <0.05; it can be said that the basic factor, i.e., student kind is effective. In another word, the amount of applying learning strategies in successful and unsuccessful students is different from each other. By considering obtained averages, it is observed that the average of applying learning strategies in successful students is more than unsuccessful students [Table 1].  Table 1: Ttest with independent samples for considering the difference of average in applying learning strategies in successful and unsuccessful students
Click here to view 
First minor hypothesis
The amount of applying selfarrangement component of learning strategies is different between successful and unsuccessful students. It was used from learning strategies from ttests with independent samples for considering this hypothesis according to determining being the meaningful and unmeaningful difference.
As the obtained meaningful level 0.00 is <0.05, it can be said that the amount of applying selfadjustment component of learning strategies in successful students is different from unsuccessful students. By considering the obtained averages, it is observed that the amount of applying selfadjustment component in successful students is more than in unsuccessful students [Table 2].  Table 2: Ttest with independent sample to consider the average difference of applying selfarrangement component of learning strategies in successful students
Click here to view 
“The amount of applying skill component of learning strategies is different in successful and unsuccessful students.” It was used from ttest with independent samples to consider this hypothesis based on determination of being meaningful or unmeaningful difference in applying skill component of learning strategies.
As the obtained meaningful level 0.00 is <0.05, it can be said that the basic factor, i.e., student kind is effective. The amount of applying learning strategies in successful and unsuccessful students is different from each other. The average of applying learning strategies in successful students is more than unsuccessful students [Table 3] and [Table 4].  Table 3: Ttest with independent samples to consider the amount of difference in applying skill component of learning strategies
Click here to view 
 Table 4: Ttest with independent samples to consider the amount of difference in applying motivation component of learning strategies
Click here to view 
Third minor hypothesis
“The amount of applying the motivation component of learning strategies is different in successful and unsuccessful students of Islamic Azad University of Esfarayen.” It was used from ttest with independent samples to consider this hypothesis based on the determination of being meaningful or unmeaningful difference in applying motivation component of learning strategies.
As the obtained meaningful level 0.00 is <0.05, the amount of applying the motivation component of learning strategies in successful and unsuccessful students is different from each other. The average of applying the motivation component of learning strategies in successful students is more than unsuccessful students [Table 5].  Table 5: The testing of variance analysis to consider the difference of basic components average of learning guidelines according to different education fields
Click here to view 
As obtained being meaningful in all components are more than 0.05, it can be concluded that the hypothesis of (being) averages equality test zero is approved. Therefore, the result of variance analysis shows that there has not observed a meaningful difference in all components of learning strategies.
Fourth minor hypothesis
“We can predict students' education performance from their learning strategies.”
It is used from the analysis test of simple linear regression to determine whether it can be used from independent variance to predict independent variable amounts or not.
According to above [Table 6], the coefficient of determining equivalent 0.450 shows that the variance of learning strategies explain about 45% of educational function variance changes [Table 6] and [Table 7].
Considering that the amount of calculated F and the meaningful level significant = 0.00 < 0.05 in above table, we conclude that evaluated regression method is meaningful for predicting dependent variance by paying attention to independent variance statistically and therefore it's possible to use the variance of learning strategies for predicting educational performance. According to obtained equation, person's marks (educational function) in dependent variance are predicted according to his/her marks in independent variance (learning guidelines). Therefore, the hypothesis of predicting students' educational performance is confirmed from their learning strategies.
Discussion   
The most abundance was concerned with fields of accounting field, and the least one was concerned with mechanic technology engineering field. The most abundance was concerned to men, and the least one was concerned with women. In general, more than two third of respondents to questionnaires are men. The average of using learning guidelines and its basic components in successful students group is mediocre or higher than mediocre. It is possible to rank components in the successful group as in groups (1) skill component, (2) motivation component, and (3) selfadjustment component, respectively. In addition, the average of using learning strategies and its basic components are less than mediocre in unsuccessful students group, and the situation of these components is not suitable in this group. It is possible to rank components in unsuccessful students group as (1) skill component, (2) motivation component, and (3) selfadjustment component, respectively. It is concluded from first hypothesis that there is a meaningful difference between successful and unsuccessful students usage of learning strategies in meaningful level of 0.05 test and it can be said with 95% certainty that there is difference between successful and unsuccessful students' usage of learning strategies, and this amount of using learning strategies in successful students are more than unsuccessful ones. In relevant to 2^{nd} hypothesis, it can be concluded that hypothesis that there is a meaningful difference between successful and unsuccessful students' usage of skill component in meaningful level of 0.05 test and it can be said with 95% certainty that the amount of using skill in successful and unsuccessful students are completely different from each other, and the usage of skill component in successful students are more than unsuccessful ones. In relevant to 4^{th} hypothesis, it shows that there is a meaningful difference between successful and unsuccessful students' usage of selfadjustment component in meaningful level of 0.05 test and it can be said with 95% certainty that the amount of using selfadjustment in successful and unsuccessful students are completely different from each other, and the usage of this component in successful students are more than unsuccessful ones. In relevant to 5^{th} hypothesis, it can be said that the amount of using these three components is the same in students of different fields, and there has not been observed any meaningful difference in all components of students of different fields. In other words, they use strategies similarly. The consideration of research findings show that there is a meaningful difference in using learning strategies by successful and unsuccessful students. The result of this research has harmony with Hashemi et al. (2008), Salehi and Enayati (2008), Hosseini Shahidi et al. (2005), Albili (1997) and Khadiv Zade et al. (1999). Indicating the presence of meaningful difference between learning strategies with educational progression. In addition to this, in justifying these findings, it can be said that as learning strategies emphasize on learner's active role and cause them to face information actively, and therefore they comprehend subjects better and deeper, so such a finding is not far from expectation. Another result of this research showed that there is a meaningful difference in the amount of applying skill component from learning strategies between successful and unsuccessful students. There is a meaningful relationship between data processing (Elbili, 1997Halic and Hinginson, 1989), and testing strategies (Hosseini Shahidi et al. 2005) and choose of basic idea (Elbili, 1997). Another finding of this research showed that there is a meaningful difference between the amount of using motivation component from learning strategies by successful and unsuccessful students. The obtained result of this research is harmony in all parts of motivation component. Also, it is in harmony with Yip's (2007), Garner and Bandar's (2010) findings. Also, the research findings indicate that there is not a meaningful relationship between the amount of applying selfadjustment of learning strategies in students of different fields. In other words, they do not use strategies the same. By considering that researched fields are in two groups of technical engineering and humanities, therefore, the obtained result of this research is in harmony with the results of Salehi and Enayati's research in 2008 indicating the lack of presence a meaningful relationship between the students of these two academic groups. Including reasons that can be expressed is increasing students' awareness in time. Also, the analysis of results about present research indicates that it is possible to predict educational progression by learning strategies. By considering that the usage of learning strategies can have a deep influence on students' academic function, such a finding is not far from expectation.
Financial support and sponsorship
Nil.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
References   
1.  Henry S. Success psychology. Translated by Yusef A. Tehran: Roozaneh Publication; 1993. 
2.  Alexander PA, Murphy PK, Guan J. The learning and study strategies of highly able female students in Singapore. Educ Psychol 1998;18:397408. 
3.  Weinstein CE, Jong J, Acee TW. Learning strategies. J Int Encyclopedia Educ 2010;18:3239. 
4.  Biehler RF, Snowman J. Psychology Applied to Teaching. 7 ^{th} ed. USA: Houghton Mifflin; 1993. 
5.  Biyabangard E. Educational Psychology. 3 ^{rd} ed. Tehran: Published Virayesh; 2009. 
6.  Murray B. Getting smart about learning is her lesson, Claire Ellen Weinstein's notion of strategic learning has enjoyed growing acceptance in higher education. Am Psychol Assoc Online 1998;29:29. 
7.  Gage NL, Berliner DC. Educational psychology of school learning. Boston: Little, Brown; 1992. 
8.  Nitko AJ. Educational assessment of students. Upper Saddle River. 3 ^{rd} ed. NJ: Merrill, PrenticeHall; 2001. 
9.  Nitko AJ. Educational Assessment of Students. 3 ^{rd} ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill, PrenticeHall; 2001. 
10.  Brown AL. Mental orthopedics, the training of cognitive skills: An interview with Alfred Binet. In: Chipman SO, Segal JW, Glaser R, editors. Thinking and Learning Skills, Volume 2: Research and Open Questions. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1985. p. 65116. 
11.  Slavin RE. Educational psychology: Theory and practice. 8 ^{th} ed. New York: Pearsn; 2006. 
12.  Garner R. When children and adults do not use learning strategies: Toward a theory of settings. Rev Educ Res 1990;60:51730. 
13.  Salehi M, Enayati T. Study.mqays·h learning strategies and its relationship with academic achievement. JNew Thoughts on Educ 2009;4:8163. 
14.  Kajbaf, Mb. Mousavi, H. Relationship between motivational beliefs and selfregulation learning strategies and academic performance of high school students Shhrasfhan. Tazeh in Cognitive Sci 2008;5:3327. 
15.  Eunsook H, Yvette A. Comparative Cognitive and Motivational charactcteristics of Gifted and non gifted. University of Nevada, las vegas; 2004. Available from: http://www.hcq. Sagequb. Com/centent 48(3):191201. [Last accessed on 2011 Jan 04]. 
16.  Bouffard B, Parent S, Laviree S. Self –Regulation on a concept – Formation Task among Average and Gifted students, Excermental child psychology 2002;56:11534. 
17.  Yip MC. Differences in learning and study strategies between high and low achieving university students: A Hong Kong study. Educ Psychol 2007;27:597606. 
18.  Bender SD, Garner KJ. Using the LASSI to Predict First Year College Achievement: Is a GenderSpecific Approach Necessary. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Denver, Colorado; 2010. p.1. 
[Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5], [Table 6], [Table 7]
