SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Çukurova Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi / 2025 / Cilt: 54 Sayı: 1

Investigating the Mediating Effect of Deep Learning on General Academic Achievement

Derin Öğrenmenin Genel Akademik Başarı Üzerindeki Aracılık Etkisinin İncelenmesi

Tuba Acar Erdol, Sinem Demirkol, Emel Bayrak Özmutlu, Sevda Turkis, Elif Çil

Pages
80–105
Publication Date
2025-04-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗

Abstract

Deep learning is effective for learners to understand and associate information instead of memorizing it, making learning more meaningful and permanent, and achieving higher-level learning outcomes. Previous research has identified a relationship between academic achievement and both gender, a biological variable, and interest in the arts, a social variable. This study aims to examine the mediating effect of deep learning on the relationship between gender, interest in an art discipline, and academic achievement. The study group consisted of 1264 high school students, and data were collected using a personal information form and the Learning Approaches Inventory. As a result of the study in which path analysis was used, it was seen that both the general academic achievement averages and the mean scores of female students toward deep learning were significantly higher than male students. Students interested in an art field had significantly higher deep learning scores compared to those who were not interested, while the general academic achievement scores of students interested in an art field were found to be significantly lower. Finally, it was determined that deep learning played a mediating role in the relationship between gender and interest in art and academic achievement

Özet

Derin öğrenme, öğrenenlerin bilgiyi ezberlemek yerine anlama ve ilişkilendirmelerinde, öğrenmeyi daha anlamlı ve kalıcı hâle getirmelerinde, üst düzey öğrenme çıktılarına ulaşmalarında etkili olmaktadır. Biyolojik bir değişken olan cinsiyet ve sosyal bir değişken olan sanatla ilgilenme ile akademik başarı arasında ilişki olduğu geçmiş araştırmalarda tespit edilmiştir. Bu araştırma ile de cinsiyet ve bir sanat dalıyla ilgilenme ile akademik başarı arasındaki ilişkide derin öğrenmenin aracı etkisinin incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. İlişkisel tarama modelinin kullanıldığı bu araştırmanın çalışma grubunu 1264 lise öğrencisi oluşturmuştur. Araştırmanın verileri kişisel bilgi formu ve Öğrenme Yaklaşımları Envanteri ile toplanmıştır. Yol analizinin kullanıldığı araştırma sonucunda, kız öğrencilerin hem genel akademik başarı ortalamalarının hem de derin öğrenmeye yönelik puan ortalamalarının erkek öğrencilerden anlamlı düzeyde yüksek olduğu görülmüştür. Bir sanat dalıyla ilgilenen öğrencilerin derin öğrenme puanları ilgilenmeyenlerden anlamlı derece yüksek iken, bir sanat dalıyla ilgilenen öğrencilerin genel akademik başarı puanları anlamlı derecede daha düşük bulunmuştur. Son olarak cinsiyet ve sanatla ilgilenmenin akademik başarı ile ilişkisinde derin öğrenmenin aracı rolü olduğu tespit edilmiştir.

Keywords
🔖

Cite This Article

Erdol, T. A., Demirkol, S., Özmutlu, E. B., Turkis, S., Çil, E. (2025). Investigating the Mediating Effect of Deep Learning on General Academic Achievement. Çukurova Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 54 Sayı: 1, 80–105. https://doi.org/10.14812/cuefd.1468999

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

References (77)

  1. Acar-Erdol, T., & Akin-Arikan, Ç. (2022). Gender gap in reading achievement: The mediating role of metacognitive strategies and reading-related attitudes. Social Psychology of Education, 25(2-3), 537-566. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-022-09692-9
  2. Adams, J. (2014). Finding time to make mistakes. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 33(1), 2-5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-8070.2014.12040.x
  3. Arıkan, N. İ. (2019). Akademik başarı ile seçilmiş sosyoekonomik değişkenler arasındaki ilişki üzerine bir araştırma. USBAD Uluslararası Sosyal Bilimler Akademi Dergisi, 1(2), 14-29.
  4. Baeten, M., Kyndt, E., Struyven, K., & Dochy, F. (2010). Using student-centred learning environments to stimulate deep approaches to learning: Factors encouraging or discouraging their effectiveness. Educational Research Review, 5(3), 243-260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2010.06.001
  5. Baeten, M., Dochy, F., & Struyven, K. (2013). The effects of different learning environments on students’ motivation for learning and their achievement. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(3), 484-501. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.2012.02076.x
  6. Barry, A. (2019). Gender differences in academic achievement in Saudi Arabia: A wake-up call to educational leaders. International Journal of Education, 15(15). https://doi.org/ 10.22230/IJEPL.2019V15N15A890
  7. Biggs, J. B. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying, research monograph. Australian Council for Educational Research.
  8. Biggs, J. B., & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university. Open University Press.
  9. Booth, P., Luckett, P., & Mladenovic, R. (1999). The quality of learning in accounting education: The impact of approaches to learning on academic performance. Accounting Education, 8(4), 277-300. https://doi.org/10.1080/096392899330801
  10. Chen, X. (2024). Art-based curriculum to cultivate students’ competency in secondary vocational school in China: The mediating role of cross-disciplinary connections. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 13(3), 250-270. https://doi.org/10.6007/ijarped/v13-i3/21589
  11. Cope, C., & Staehr, L. (2005). Improving students’ learning approaches through intervention in an information systems learning environment. Studies in Higher Education, 30(2), 181- 197. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070500043275
  12. Çolak, E., & Cırık, İ. (2016). Lise öğrencilerinin öğrenme yaklaşımları profili. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 12(1), 106-118. https://doi.org/10.17860/efd.87832
  13. Çolak, E., & Fer, S. (2007). Öğrenme Yaklaşımları Envanterinin dilsel eşdeğerlik, güvenirlik ve geçerlik çalışması. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 16(1), 197-211.
  14. Darlington, R. B., & Hayes, A. F. (2017). Regression analysis and linear models: Concepts, applications, and implementation. The Guilford Press.
  15. Danker, B. (2015). Using flipped classroom approach to explore deep learning in large classrooms. The IAFOR Journal of Education, 3(1), 171-186. https://doi.org/10.22492/ije.3.1
  16. Diseth, Å. (2003). Personality and approaches to learning as predictors of academic achievement. European Journal of Personality, 17(2), 143-155. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.469
  17. Douglas, H. E., Rubin, M., Scevak, J., Southgate, E., Macqueen, S., & Richardson, J. T. (2020). Older women, deeper learning: Age and gender interact to predict learning approach and academic achievement at university. Frontiers in Education, 5(158). https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.00158
  18. Eley, M. G. (1992). Differential adoption of study approaches within individual students. Higher Education, 23(3), 231-254. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00145015
  19. Entwistle, N. (2001). Styles of learning and approaches to studying in higher education. Kybernetes, 30(5/6), 593-603. https://doi.org/10.1108/03684920110391823
  20. Entwistle, N. (2009). Teaching for understand at university: Deep approaches and distinctive ways of thinking. Macmillan.
  21. Entwistle, N., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. Croom Helm.
  22. Ericsson, K. A., & Charness, N. (1994). Expert performance: Its structure and acquisition. American Psychologist, 49(8), 725-747. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.49.8.725
  23. Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2009). How to design and evaluate research in education. McGraw-Hill.
  24. Fong, C. J., Kremer, K. P., Cox, C. H. T., & Lawson, C. A. (2021). Expectancy-value profiles in math and science: A person-centered approach to cross-domain motivation with academic and STEM-related outcomes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2021.101962
  25. Ghazvini, S. D., & Khajehpour, M. (2011). Gender differences in factors affecting academic performance of high school students. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 1040-1045. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.03.236
  26. Gijbels, D., Segers, M., & Struyf, E. (2008). Constructivist learning environments and the (im)possibility to change students’ perceptions of assessment demands and approaches to learning. Instructional Science, 36, 431–443. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9064-7
  27. Greenberg, H. (2010). Social and academic benefits of after-school theatre programming for low-income adolescents. Applied Theatre Researcher, 11, 1-18.
  28. Hallam, R., Creech, A., & McQueen, H. (2011) Musical Futures: A case study investigation. Final report from the Institute of Education University of London for the Paul Hamlyn Foundation. https://www.musicalfutures.org/resource/27646/title/instituteofeduc\ationlongitudinalstud yofmusicalfutures. Accessed on 25 May 2023.
  29. Harland, J., Kinder, K., & Haynes, J. (1998). The effects and effectiveness of arts education in schools. National Foundation for Educational Research in England and Wales.
  30. Hasnor, H. N., Ahmad, Z., & Nordin, N. (2013). The relationship between learning approaches and academic achievement among Intec students, Uitm Shah Alam. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 90, 178-186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.07.080
  31. Heikkilä, A., Niemivirta, M., Nieminen, J., & Lonka, K. (2011). Interrelations among university students’ approaches to learning, regulation of learning, and cognitive and attributional strategies: A person oriented approach. Higher Education, 61(5), 513–529. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-010-9346-2
  32. Heath, S. B., Soep, E., & Roach, A. (1998). Living the arts through language learning: A report on community-based youth organizations. Americans for the Arts.
  33. Heyning, L. (2010). The enhancement of musical and other learning for both teachers and students through a weekly choir session. Australian Journal of Music Education, 1, 58- 44 70. https://doi.org/10.3316/informit.691265582321982
  34. Hollett, E., & Cassalia, A. (2022). Convergent thinking for advanced learners, grades 3–5. Routledge.
  35. Hsieh, C. Y. (2018). Developing design through a creative problem‐solving process: A group community art project. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 37(3), 541-553. https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12155
  36. Iacobucci, D., Neela S., & Xiaoyan D. (2007). A meditation on mediation: Evidence that structural equations models perform better than regressions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(2), 139-153. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1057-7408(07)70020-7
  37. Imms, W., Jeanneret, N., & Stevens-Ballenger, J. (2011). Partnerships between schools and the professional arts sector: Evaluation of impact on student outcomes. Arts Victoria. https://apo.org.au/node/29443
  38. Karabıyık, C. (2020). The interplay between academic motivation and academic achievement of teacher trainees. International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 12(2), 209-225. http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1408-931X
  39. Kaufman, S., Quilty, L., Grazioplene, R., Hirsh, J., Gray, J., Peterson, J., … DeYoung, C. (2015). Openness to experience and intellect differentially predict creative achievement in the arts and sciences. Journal of Personality, 84(2), 248-258. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12156
  40. Ke, W., & Ke, W. (2020, December). Analysis of instructional design based on deep learning perspective. In 2020 International Conference on Information Science and Education (ICISE-IE) (pp. 155-158). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICISE51755.2020.00039
  41. Kember, D. (1996). The intention to both memorize and understand: Another approach to learning? Higher Education, 31, 341 354. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00128436
  42. Kember, D., Biggs, J., & Leung, D. Y. (2004). Examining the multidimensionality of approaches to learning through the development of a revised version of the Learning Process Questionnaire. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(2), 261-279. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709904773839879
  43. Kolb, B., & Cioe, J. (1996). Sex-related differences in cortical function after medial frontal lesions in rats. Behavioral neuroscience, 110(6), 1271–1281. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7044.110.6.1271
  44. Kyndt, E., Dochy, F., Struyven, K., & Cascallar, E. (2011). The perception of workload and task complexity and its influence on students’ approaches to learning: A study in higher education. European journal of psychology of education, 26, 393-415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-010-0053-2
  45. Lin, S. (2017). Women win through averages, men win through extremes: An empirical examination of business student GPA data. Chinese Sociological Dialogue, 2(3-4), 120-135. https://doi.org/10.1177/23972009177315
  46. Little, T. D., Card, N. A., Bovaird, J. A, Preacher, K. J., & Crandall, C. S. (2007). Structural equation modeling of mediation and moderation with contextual factors, T. D. Little, J. A. Bovaird ve N. A. Card (ed.). Modeling Contextual Effects in Longitudinal Studies (pp.207-230). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
  47. Lizzio, A., Wilson, K., & Simons, R. (2002). University students’ perceptions of the learning environment and academic outcomes: Implications for theory and practice. Studies in Higher Education, 27, 27–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070120099359
  48. Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1997). Approaches to learning. F. Marton, D. Hounsell ve D. N. Entwistle (Ed.). The experience of learning (pp.39-58). Scottish Academic Press.
  49. Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning I: Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4-11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1976.tb02980.x
  50. Negash, T. T., Eshete, M. T., & Hanago, G. A. (2022). Students’ learning approaches as a factor of academic achievement at selected public universities: A cross-sectional study. Frontiers in Education, 7, 965573. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.965573
  51. OECD (2015). The ABC of gender equality in education: Aptitude, behaviour, confidence. OECD Publishing.
  52. Parpala, A., Lindblom‐Ylänne, S., Komulainen, E., Litmanen, T., & Hirsto, L. (2010). Students' approaches to learning and their experiences of the teaching–learning environment in different disciplines. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 269-282. https://doi.org/ 10.1348/000709909X476946
  53. Poondej, C., & Lerdpornkulrat, T. (2016). Relationship between motivational goal orientations, perceptions of general education classroom learning environment, and deep approaches to learning. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 37(2), 100-103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kjss.2015.01.001
  54. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879
  55. Portowitz, A., Lichtenstein, O., Egorova, L., & Brand, E. (2009). Underlying mechanisms linking music education and cognitive modifiability. Research Studies in Music Education, 31(2), 107-128. https://doi.org/10.1177/1321103X09344378
  56. Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding learning and teaching. The experience in higher education. The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
  57. R Core Team. (2023). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
  58. Ramsden, P. (1988). Context and strategy: Situational influences on learning, R. R. Schmeck (Ed.). Learning strategies and learning styles (pp.159-184). Springer.
  59. Roof, R L., Zhang, Q., Glasıer, M. M., & Stein, D. G. (1993). Gender-specific impairment on Morris water maze task after entorhinal cortex lesion. Behavioural Brain Research, 57, 47-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-4328(93)90060-4
  60. Rickard, N. S., Bambrick, C. J., & Gill, A. (2012). Absence of widespread psychosocial and cognitive effects of school based music instruction in 10–13-year-old students. International Journal of Music Education, 30(1), 57-78. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761411431399
  61. Sax, L. (2005). Why gender matters. Basic Books.
  62. Soycan, M., & Göher-Vural, F. (2015). The relationship between secondary school grade point average scores and musical interest in Turkey. International Journal of Human Sciences, 12(2), 1568-1580. https://doi.org/10.14687/ijhs.v12i2.3372
  63. Spiel, C., Wagner, P., & Fellner, G. (2002). Wie lange arbeiten kinder zu hause für die schule? Eine analyse in gymansium und grundschule [How long do pupils work at home for school? Analyses in "Gymnasium" and 'Grundschule."]. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie, 34(3), 125–135. https://doi.org/10.1026/0049-8637.34.3.125.
  64. Takase, M., & Yoshida, I. (2021). The relationships between the types of learning approaches used by undergraduate nursing students and their academic achievement: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Professional Nursing, 37(5), 836-845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2021.06.005
  65. Tarabashkina, L., & Lietz, P. (2011). The impact of values and learning approaches on student achievement: Gender and academic discipline influences. Issues in Educational Research, 21(2), 210-231.
  66. Tsingos, C., Bosnic-Anticevich, S., & Smith, L. (2015). Learning styles and approaches: Can reflective strategies encourage deep learning? Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 7(4), 492-504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2015.04.006
  67. Tymms, P. B., & Fitz‐Gibbon, C. T. (1992). The relationship of homework to A‐level results. Educational Research, 34(1), 3-10. https://doi.org/10.1080/0013188920340101
  68. Vermunt, J. D. (1998). The regulation of constructive learning processes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68(2), 149–171. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1998.tb01281.x
  69. Wagner, P., & Spiel, C. (1999). Arbeitszeit für die schule zu variabilität und determinanten [The amount of time pupils work for school variability and determinants]. Empirische Pädagogik, 13(2), 123-150.
  70. Wagner, P., Schober, B., & Spiel, C. (2008). Time students spend working at home for school. Learning and Instruction, 18(4), 309-320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.03.002
  71. Wang, M. (2022). Analyzing the influence of college aesthetic education teaching on college students’ innovation ability and artistic literacy based on decision tree classification model. Mobile Information Systems, 9587049. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/9587049
  72. Watters, D. J., & Watters, J. J. (2007). Approaches to learning by students in the biological sciences: Implications for teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 29(1), 19-43. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600621282
  73. Winje, Ø., & Løndal, K. (2020). Bringing deep learning to the surface: A systematic mapping review of 48 years of research in primary and secondary education. Nordic Journal of Comparative and International Education (NJCIE), 4(2), 25-41. https://doi.org/10.7577/njcie.3798
  74. Winner, E., & Hetland, L. (2000). The arts in education: Evaluating the evidence for a causal link. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 34(3-4) 3-10. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3333636
  75. Wirth, K. R., & Perkins, D. (2008). Learning to learn. http://geology.wwu.edu/dept/faculty/hirschd/courses/2012/winter/306/handouts/learning.pdf
  76. Wong, Y. L., & Siu, K. W. M. (2012). A model of creative design process for fostering creativity of students in design education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 22, 437-450. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-011-9162-8
  77. Xu, J. (2006). Gender and homework management reported by high school students. Educational Psychology, 26(1), 73-91. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410500341023