Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Reflective and integrative learning and the role of instructors and institutions—evidence from Malaysia

  • Published:
Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The shift in contemporary workplaces has caused higher education institutions to place importance on developing non-academic attributes along with academic success to help students accomplish academic and occupational goals. Reflective and integrative learning as a cumulative process of students’ experiences inside and outside the classroom during university years can facilitate the development of desired attributes among undergraduates. The current study, grounded in Biggs’ (Higher education research and development, 12(1), 73-85, 1993) 3P model approach, investigated the role of student-faculty interaction, assessment and feedback, and campus environment as presage factors, and reflective and integrative learning as the process factor and academic and soft skills gain as the product factors into a full mediation model. A total of 1892 final year Malaysian undergraduate students from 18 universities across Malaysia participated in the cross-sectional survey study. The hypothesized model was tested using structural equation modeling. The results revealed that reflective and integrative learning fully mediates the relationship between student-faculty interaction, assessment and feedback, campus environment, and academic and soft skills gains. The implications for teaching and learning and student development are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arum, R., & Roksa, J. (2011). Academically adrift: limited learning on college campuses. Chicago: University of Chicago Press

  • Asikainen, H., & Gijbels, D. (2017). Do students develop towards more deep approaches to learning during studies? A systematic review on the development of students’ deep and surface approaches to learning in higher education. Educational Psychology Review, 29(2), 205–234

  • Awang-Hashim, R., Yusof, N., Suppiah Shanmugam, K., Kaur, A., Abd Manaf, N., Zubairi, A., Jaafar, M.S., Yee, A. S. V., & Abdul-Malek, M. (2019). Development and validation of an Assessment Tool to measure Quality of Undergraduate Learning Experiences. Technical Report submitted to MOHE. Putrajaya, Malaysia: MOHE

  • Baird, L. L. (2005). College environments and climates: assessments and their theoretical assumptions. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 507–538). Bodmin: Springer

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Barber, J. P. (2012). Integration of learning: a grounded theory analysis of college students’ learning. American Educational Research Journal, 49(3), 590–617

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barton, G., & Ryan, M. (2014). Multimodal approaches to reflective teaching and assessment in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 33(3), 409–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beausaert, S. A., Segers, M., & Wiltink, D. P. (2013). The influence of teachers’ teaching approaches on students’ learning approaches: The student perspective. Educational research, 55(1), 1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, R. E. (2011). Formative assessment: a critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(1), 5–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J. B. (1989). Approaches to the enhancement of tertiary teaching. Higher Education Research and Development, 8(1), 7–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J. B. (1993). From theory to practice: a cognitive systems approach. Higher Education Research and Development, 12(1), 73–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bliuc, A.-M., Ellis, R. A., Goodyear, P., & Hendres, D. M. (2011). Understanding student learning in context: relationships between university students’ social identity, approaches to learning, and academic performance. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 26(3), 417–433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, B. S., Englehart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Handbook I Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay

    Google Scholar 

  • Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2013). Rethinking models of feedback for learning: the challenge of design. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(6), 698–712

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, G. T. (2011). Self-regulation of assessment beliefs and attitudes: a review of the students’ conceptions of assessment inventory. Educational Psychology, 31(6), 731–748

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, P. C., Roediger, H. L., III., & McDaniel, M. A. (2014). Make it stick. Cambridge: Belknap Press

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bruno, A., & Dell’ Aversana, G. (2018). Reflective practicum in higher education: the influence of the learning environment on the quality of learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(3), 345–358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, B. M. (2016). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315–1325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carless, D., Salter, D., Yang, M., & Lam, J. (2011). Developing sustainable feedback practices. Studies in Higher Education, 36(4), 395–407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clinton, V. (2014). The relationship between students’ preferred approaches to learning and behaviors during learning: an examination of the process stage of the 3P model. Instructional Science, 42(5), 817–837

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, E. D. (2018). Gendered styles of student-faculty interaction among college students. Social Science Research, 75, 117–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook-Sather, A., Bovill, C., & Felten, P. (2014). Engaging students as partners in learning and teaching: a guide for faculty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

    Google Scholar 

  • Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 10(7), 1–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Critical Thinking Value Rubric. (2010). Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U). Retrieved July 16, 2020, from http://www.aacu.org/value/rubrics/criticalthinking

  • Felten, P., Gardner, J. N., Schroeder, C. C., Lambert, L. M., Barefoot, O., & Hrabowski, F. A. (2016). The undergraduate experience: focusing institutions on what matters most. San Francisco: Wiley

    Google Scholar 

  • Fink, L. D. (2013). Creating significant learning experiences: an integrated approach to designing college courses. New York: Wiley

    Google Scholar 

  • Fullana, J., Pallisera, M., Colomer, J., Fernández Peña, R., & Pérez-Burriel, M. (2016). Reflective learning in higher education: a qualitative study on students’ perceptions. Studies in Higher Education, 41(6), 1008–1022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, G., & Simpson, C. (2004). Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1(1), 3–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Guo, J. (2018). Building bridges to student learning: perceptions of the learning environment, engagement, and learning outcomes among Chinese undergraduates. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 59, 195–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch, B., & Ng, J. P. (2011). Education beyond the cloud: Anytime-anywhere learning in a smart campus environment. In Proceedings of 2011 International Conference for Internet Technology and Secured Transactions (ICITST) (pp. 718–723). Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates: Conference on IEEE

  • Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: a Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber, M. T., & Hutchings, P. (2004). Integrative Learning: Mapping the Terrain. The Academy in Transition. Stanford CA: Association of American Colleges & Universities and the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Retrieved July 16, 2020, from http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/dynamic/publications/mapping-terrain.pdf

  • Hurtado, S., Milem, J., Clayton-Pedersen, A., & Allen, W. (1999). Enacting diverse learning environments: improving the climate for racial/ethnic diversity in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, M., Baldi, C., Phillips, C., & Waikar, A. (2017). The hard truth about soft skills: what recruiters look for in business graduates. College Student Journal, 50(3), 422–428

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaur, A., Noman, M., & Nordin, H. (2017). Inclusive assessment for linguistically diverse learners in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(5), 756–771

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y. K., & Sax, L. J. (2009). Student–faculty interaction in research universities: differences by student gender, race, social class, and first-generation status. Research in Higher Education, 50(5), 437–459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford publications

    Google Scholar 

  • Kosir, K., & Tement, S. (2014). Teacher–student relationship and academic achievement: a cross-lagged longitudinal study on three different age groups. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 29(3), 409–428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuh, G. D. (1995). The other curriculum: out-of-class experiences associated with student learning and personal development. The Journal of Higher Education, 66(2), 123–155

    Google Scholar 

  • Laird, T. F. N., Shoup, R., Kuh, G. D., & Schwarz, M. J. (2008). The effects of discipline on deep approaches to student learning and college outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 49(6), 469–494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lea, M. R., & Street, B. V. (1998). Student writing in higher education: an academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education, 23(2), 157–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, W. S., & Chan, C. K. K. (2018). Relationships among epistemic beliefs, perception of learning environment, study approaches and academic performance: a longitudinal exploration with 3P model. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 27(4), 267–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leech, N. L., Barrett, K., & Morgan, G. A. (2013). SPSS for intermediate statistics: use and interpretation (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Long, M. M., Sandler, D. M., & Topol, M. T. (2017). Short-term field study programs: a holistic and experiential approach to learning. Journal of Teaching in International Business, 28(1), 49–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(1), 99–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, A. L. (2012). Investigating social desirability bias in student self-report surveys. Educational Research Quarterly, 36(1), 30–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Mory, E. H. (2004). Feedback research revisited. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 745–783). New York: Erlbaum

    Google Scholar 

  • Museus, S. D. (2014). The Culturally Engaging Campus Environments (CECE) Model: A new theory of college success among racially diverse student populations. In M. B. Paulsen (Ed.) Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research. New York: Springer

  • Education, N. L. C. F. L., & Promise, A. (2007). College learning for the new global century. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities

  • Nelson Laird, T., & Cruce, T. M. (2009). Individual and environmental effects of part-time enrollment status on student-faculty interaction and self-reported gains. The Journal of Higher Education, 80(3), 290–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson Laird, T., Seifert, T. A., Pascarella, E. T., Mayhew, M. J., & Blaich, C. (2011). Deeply affecting first-year students' thinking: The effects of deep approaches to learning on three outcomes. Paper presented at the Association for the Study of Higher Education Annual Conference, Charlotte

  • Nelson Laird, T., Seifert, T. A., Pascarella, E. T., Mayhew, M. J., & Blaich, C. F. (2014). Deeply affecting first-year students’ thinking: deep approaches to learning and three dimensions of cognitive development. The Journal of Higher Education, 85(3), 402–432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicol, D., Thomson, A., & Breslin, C. (2014). Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: a peer review perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(1), 102–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill

  • Pang, E., Wong, M., Leung, C., & Coombes, J. (2019). Competencies for fresh graduates’ success at work: perspectives of employers. Industry and Higher Education, 33(1), 55–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research (Vol. 2). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

    Google Scholar 

  • Pascarella, E. T., Martin, G. L., Hanson, J. M., Trolian, T. L., Gillig, B., & Blaich, C. (2014). Effects of diversity experiences on critical thinking skills over 4 years of college. Journal of College Student Development, 55(1), 86–92

  • Pike, G. R., Smart, J. C., & Ethington, C. A. (2012). The mediating effects of student engagement on the relationships between academic disciplines and learning outcomes: an extension of Holland’s theory. Research in Higher Education, 53(5), 550–575

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rankin, S. R., & Reason, R. D. (2005). Differing perceptions: how students of color and White students perceive campus climate for underrepresented groups. Journal of College Student Development, 46(1), 43–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rankin, S., & Reason, R. (2008). Transformational Tapestry Model: a comprehensive approach to transforming campus climate. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 1(4), 262–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, A. D. (2017). Feelings about feedback: The role of emotions in assessment for learning. In S. Carless, C. Chan, & R. Glofcheski (Eds.), Scaling up assessment for learning in higher education (pp. 159–172). Singapore: Springer

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Salzer, M. S. (2012). A comparative study of campus experiences of college students with mental illnesses versus a general college sample. Journal of American College Health, 60(1), 1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sax, L. J., Bryant, A. N., & Harper, C. E. (2005). The differential effects of student-faculty interaction on college outcomes for women and men. Journal of College Student Development, 46(6), 642–657

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, C. G. (2003). Liberal education and integrative learning. Issues in Interdisciplinary Studies, 21, 1–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinkkonen, H.-M., Puhakka, H., & Meriläinen, M. (2014). Bullying at a university: students’ experiences of bullying. Studies in higher education, 39(1), 153–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Struyven, K., & Devesa, J. (2016). Students’ perceptions of novel forms of assessment. In G. T. Harris (Ed.), Handbook of human and social conditions in assessment (pp. 129–144). New York: Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  • Stuart, M., Lido, C., Morgan, J., Solomon, L., & May, S. (2011). The impact of engagement with extracurricular activities on the student experience and graduate outcomes for widening participation populations. Active Learning in Higher Education, 12(3), 203–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Tai, J., Ajjawi, R., Boud, D., Dawson, P., & Panadero, E. (2018). Developing evaluative judgement: enabling students to make decisions about the quality of work. Higher Education, 76(3), 467–481

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veenman, M. V. (2011). Alternative assessment of strategy use with self-report instruments: a discussion. Metacognition and Learning, 6(2), 205–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Western and Northern Canadian Protocol (WNCP) (2006). Rethinking classroom assessment with purpose in mind: Assessment for learning, assessment as learning, assessment of learning. Retrieved July 16, 2020, from https://www.edu.gov.mb.ca/k12/assess/wncp/rethinking_assess_mb.pdf

  • Wolpert-Gawron, H. (2012). How Can We Make Assessments Meaningful? Retrieved July 16, 2020, from https://www.edutopia.org/blog/making-assessments-meaningful-heather-wolpert-gawron

  • Wood, J. P., Little, S., Goldring, L., & Jenkins, L. (2011). The confidence to do things that I know nothing about-Skills development through extra-curricular inquiry activity. Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, 3, 2–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Yancey, K. B. (1998). Reflection in the writing classroom. Logan: Utah State University Press

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Youngerman, E. (2018). Integrative learning in award-winning student writing: a grounded theory analysis. AERA Open, 4(3), 1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education and Modern Languages, College of Arts and Sciences, Universiti Utara Malaysia, 06010, Sintok, Kedah, Malaysia

    Rosna Awang-Hashim & S. Kanageswari a/p Suppiah Shanmugam

  2. School of Psychology, College of Liberal Arts, Wenzhou-Kean University, Ouhai District, 88 Daxue Rd, Wenzhou, Zhejiang, China

    Amrita Kaur

  3. School of Multimedia Technology and Communication, College of Arts and Sciences, Universiti Utara Malaysia, 06010, Sintok, Kedah, Malaysia

    Norhafezah Yusof

  4. Tunku Intan Safinaz School of Accountancy, Universiti Utara Malaysia, 06010, Sintok, Kedah, Malaysia

    Nor Aziah Abdul Manaf

  5. Kulliyyah of Education, International Islamic Unversity Malaysia, Jalan Gombak, Selangor, Malaysia

    Ainol Madziah Zubairi

  6. City University Malaysia, Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia

    Angelina Yee Seow Voon

  7. School of Media and Communication, Faculty of Social Sciences and Leisure Management, Taylor’s University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

    Marzura Abdul Malek

Authors
  1. Rosna Awang-Hashim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amrita Kaur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Norhafezah Yusof
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. S. Kanageswari a/p Suppiah Shanmugam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Nor Aziah Abdul Manaf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ainol Madziah Zubairi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Angelina Yee Seow Voon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Marzura Abdul Malek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amrita Kaur.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

  • 1. Student-faculty interaction (4 items)

Six-point Likert scale: 1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = sometimes, 4 = often, 5 = very often, 6 = always.

During the current academic year, how often did you do the following?

  1. 1.

    Talked about career plans with any teaching staff.

  2. 2.

    Worked with any teaching staff on activities other than coursework (committees, student groups, etc.).

  3. 3.

    Discussed course topics, ideas, or concepts with any teaching staff outside of class.

  4. 4.

    Discussed your academic performance with any teaching staff.

  • 2. Feedback and assessment (4 items)

Six-point Likert scale: 1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = sometimes, 4 = often, 5 = very often, 6 = always.

Generally, how often did the teaching staff at your institution do the following?

  1. 1.

    Provided prompt feedback on my coursework.

  2. 2.

    Provided helpful feedback to improve my learning.

  3. 3.

    Explained clearly in advance the criteria used in marking my coursework.

  4. 4.

    Provided opportunities for me to revise work based on feedback.

  • 3. Campus environment/Support (8 items)

Six-point Likert scale: 1 = very dissatisfied, 2 = dissatisfied, 3 = sometimes dissatisfied, 4 = somewhat satisfied, 5 = satisfied, 6 = very satisfied.

  • A. Supportive environment (3 items)

Please state your level of satisfaction on the supportive environment provided by your institution:

  1. 1.

    Support for my overall well-being (e.g.: sports and recreation, health care, counseling, etc.)

  2. 2.

    Opportunities to attend events that address important social, economic, or current issues.

  3. 3.

    Security and safety measures on campus.

  • B. Up-to-data academic support (3 items)

Please state your level of satisfaction on the quality of academic supports and services provided by your institution:

  1. 1.

    Academic advice/support when I needed.

  2. 2.

    Up-to-date ICT resources and facilities to support my learning.

  3. 3.

    Adequate library resources (e.g.: books, online services, learning spaces, etc) to support my learning.

  • C. Quality of Interaction (2 items)

Please state your level of satisfaction on your interaction with the following people at your institution:

  1. 1.

    Student services staff (e.g.: student affairs, career services, housing, etc.)

  2. 2.

    Other administrative staff and officers.

  • 4. Reflective and integrative learning (9 items)

Six-point Likert scale: 1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = sometimes, 4 = often, 5 = very often, 6 = always.

  • A. Reflective and Integrative Learning (6 items)

During the current academic year, how often did you do the following?

  1. 1.

    Integrated ideas from different courses/modules/subjects when completing assignments.

  2. 2.

    Connected your learning to societal problems or issues.

  3. 3.

    Examined the strengths and weaknesses of your own views on a topic or issue.

  4. 4.

    Tried to better understand someone else’s views by imagining how an issue looks from his or her perspective.

  5. 5.

    Connected ideas from your courses/modules/subjects to your prior experiences and knowledge.

  6. 6.

    Understood an issue or a concept in a different perspective due to your new learning experience

  • B. Higher-order thinking (3 items)

During the current academic year, how often did you perform the following activities to solve new problems?

  1. 1.

    Applied facts, theories, or methods to solve new problems.

  2. 2.

    Evaluated a point of view, decision, or information source.

  3. 3.

    Formed a new idea or understanding from various pieces of information.

  • 5. Academic and personal gain (4 items)

Six-point Likert scale: 1 = not at all, 2 = very little, 3 = little, 4 = somewhat, 5 = much, 6 = a great deal.

How much has your experience at this institution help you on the following:

  1. 1.

    Assumed a leadership role in organizing a seminar, activity, or managing a committee.

  2. 2.

    Felt confident and skilled in handling unfamiliar problems.

  3. 3.

    Prepared to use skills and knowledge for my future.

  4. 4.

    Presented myself with confidence.

  • 6. Soft skills gains (10 items)

Six-point Likert scale: 1 = not at all, 2 = very little, 3 = little, 4 = somewhat, 5 = much, 6 = a great deal.

How much has your experience at this institution contributed to your development in the following areas:

  1. 1.

    Write clearly and effectively

  2. 2.

    Speak clearly and effectively

  3. 3.

    Think critically and analytically

  4. 4.

    Analyze numerical and statistical information

  5. 5.

    Acquire job-related knowledge and skills

  6. 6.

    Work effectively with others

  7. 7.

    Develop my personal ethical values

  8. 8.

    Understand people of other backgrounds (e.g. economic, racial/ethnic, political, religious, nationality, etc.)

  9. 9.

    Solve serious real-world problems (e.g: global warming, cost of living, etc.)

  10. 10.

    Being an informed citizen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Awang-Hashim, R., Kaur, A., Yusof, N. et al. Reflective and integrative learning and the role of instructors and institutions—evidence from Malaysia. High Educ 83, 635–654 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-021-00689-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-021-00689-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation