Approaches to learning and competitive attitude in students in higher education

areas of debate surrounding the concept of learning style. Reviewing the subject Cassidy (2004) highlights terminology, theoretical frameworks and models, measurement and application as areas where a lack of understanding, a lack of evidence and a lack of agreement continue to exist and to hinder the development of cohesive research and practice in field. In a further review of the area, Coffield et al. (2004) extend the currently prevailing critical approach to the field of learning style to question the overall relevance of style to learning, suggesting instead other priorities over further investment in research and development of the concept. Although there continues to be much debate regarding the precise architecture of the concept of learning style, evidence that individuals do exhibit preferences in their approach to learning together with the significance of achieving a full and sound understanding of such a ubiquitous human endeavour as learning, provides a strong argument for continued activity and further enquiry in both research and practice. Approaches to learning and learning styles – conceptual issues At this stage it is important to note that although dealing with the broad topic of ‘learning style’, the present study specifically examines approaches to learning which, according to a number of influential authors in the field, are distinct from learning styles. Coffield et al. (2004) present a family-type classification of learning styles, including ‘approaches’ as a broader view of learning than ‘styles’ which are influenced by contextual factors and previous experiences and are, therefore, less fixed than styles. Rayner and Riding (1997) differentiate the concepts in terms of focus, with approaches as learning centred and styles as cognitive centred. Despite the efforts of these authors, there is an inherent problem within the learning style literature with a failure to consistently or fully acknowledge and address these conceptual differences or multiple-paradigms. In part this is due to the lack of a clear or universally accepted theoretical orthodoxy first noted by Masterman in 1970 and which still exists. This in turn creates a dilemma when reporting and interpreting ‘learning