Abstract
This investigation of 540 first year university students using the ‘approaches to studying’ inventory casts doubt on the validity of the meaning/reproducing/achieving model of the study process domain espoused by Entwistle and Biggs. Rather it suggests that the reproducing dimension can be broken down into surface/confusion and operation learning components. Little evidence was found of the role of achievement motivation in the study methods adopted by these students. The surface/confusion factor was the only factor consistently significantly correlated with tertiary grades. This study supports earlier findings with students at another Australian university that arts students and mature students are more likely to adopt deep-level approaches to study. However there was no agreement as to whether males or females were more inclined to adopt such an approach.