Formal education is a systematic way of equipping the learners with required knowledge and skills to qualify oneself for performing the future assignments in such domains effectively. Business management courses are known for their inter-disciplinary inputs. The students are trained in many functional areas relating to management like finance, human resources, marketing, production, and operations management. This study investigated learning approaches among PG students of business management using the Revised 2- Factor Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F) during the academic year 2016-17. The study examined whether the learning approaches of the business management students were related to demographics such as schooling, parental background, and gender. A total of 132 respondents were administered the Biggs 20 items revised 2 Factor Study Process Questionnaire covering surface and deep learning approaches. This study showed that the business management students who had higher aspirations preferred deep approach to surface approach. The study also revealed that either demographic characteristics or social background of the students had no bearing on learning approaches. Thus, this research endeavor brought to light that there is vast scope for influencing learning approaches, and the study would facilitate educators to better align learning approaches, subject content, and students for desired outcomes, irrespective of their demographics.

1. Aggarwal, R. (2017). Economics of e- learning in higher education: The Indian case. Prabandhan : Indian Journal of Management, 10 (6), 40 - 48. doi:10.17010/pijom/2017/v10i6/115374
2. Biggs, J. (1979). Individual differences in study processes and the quality of learning outcomes. Higher Education, 8(4), 381-394.
3. Biggs, J. (1987). The study process questionnaire (SPQ): Manual. Hawthorn, Vic: Australian Council for Educational Research.
4. Biggs, J. (1993). What do inventories of students' learning processes really measure? A theoretical review and clarification. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63 (1), 3 -19.
5. Biggs, J.B. (1999). What the student does : Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham : Open University Press.
6. Chadha, B., Rai, R. S., & Dugar, A. (2016). Globalizing higher education in India: Brian-drain in reverse - A review. Prabandhan: Indian Journal of Management, 9 (10), 23 - 33. doi:10.17010/pijom/2016/v9i10/103071
7. Choudhury, D. K. (2016). Sustainable research culture for enhancing the quality of deliverables in classroom teaching - learning environment: An in-depth analysis. Prabandhan: Indian Journal of Management, 9 (9), 27 - 43. doi:10.17010/pijom/2016/v9i9/101505
8. Fung, L. Y. (2010). A study on the learning approaches of Malaysian students in relation to English language acquisition. American Journal of Scientific Research, Issue 9, 5-11.
9. Gijbels, D., & Dochy, F. (2006). Students’ assessment preferences and approaches to learning: can formative assessment make a difference ? Educational Studies, 32(4), 399 - 409.
10. Gow, L., & David, K. (1990). Does higher education promote independent learning ? Higher Education, 19, 307 - 322.
11. Hamm, S., & Robertson, I. (2010). Preferences for deep-surface learning: A vocational education case study using a multimedia assessment activity. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26 (7), 951 - 965.
12. Harlen, W. (2007). Criteria for evaluating systems for student assessment. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 33 (1), 15 - 28.
13. Ho, A., Watkins, D., & Kelly, M. (2001). The conceptual change approach to improving teaching and learning: An evaluation of a Hong Kong staff development programme. Higher Education, 42 (2), 143 - 169.
14. Kirby, J.R., Knapper, C.K., Evans, C.J., Carty, A.E., & Gadula, C. (2003). Approaches to learning at work and workplace climate. International Journal of Training and Development, 7(1), 31- 52.
15. Lake, W., Boyd, W., & Boyd, W. (2017). Understanding how students study: The genealogy and conceptual basis of a widely used pedagogical research tool, Biggs’ study process questionnaire. International Education Studies, 10 (5), 100 - 108.
16. Leung, S. F., Mok, E., & Wong, D. (2008). The impact of assessment methods on the learning of nursing students. Nurse Education Today, 28 (6), 711 - 719.
17. Lucas, U. (2001). Deep and surface approaches to learning within introductory accounting : A phenomenographic study. Accounting Education: An International Journal, 10 (2), 161-184.
18. Martinelli, V., & Raykov, M. (2017). Evaluation of the revised two-factor study process questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F) for student teacher approaches to learning. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 7 (2), 9 -13.
19. Marton, F., & Säljo, R. (1997). Approaches to learning. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell, & N. Entwistle (eds.), The experience of learning. Implications for teaching and studying in higher education (2e). Edinburgh : Scottish Academic Press.
20. Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning : I - outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46 (1), 4 - 11.
21. Marton, F., Hounsell, D., & Entwistle, N. (eds). (1997). The experience of learning. Edinburgh : Scottish Academic Press.
22. Parsa, A., & Saketi, P. (2006). Learning approaches, outcomes and students’ perception of implemented curriculum. Shiraz Humanities and Social Sciences Journal, 26 (3), 1-23.
23. Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1998). Teaching for learning in higher education. Buckingham : Open University Press.
24. Rodriguez, L., & Cano, F. (2007). The learning approaches and epistemological beliefs of university students : A cross - sectional and longitudinal study. Studies in Higher Education, 32 (5), 647 - 667.
25. Umar, R. T., & Aliyu, M.M. (2014). Influence of study strategies on performance of business education students in financial accounting in federal universities in Nigeria. IOSR Journal of Business and Management, 16 (1), 39 - 43.
26. Wilding, J., & Andrews, B. (2006). Life goals, approaches to study and performance in an undergraduate cohort. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76 (1), 171-182.