Learning approaches describe the students’ degree of cognitive commitment to learning in diverse types of academic tasks and educational environments. Even though from a micro-level perspective different profiles of approaches have been identified in high-achievement undergraduates attending several majors, such profiles have not been examined from a macro-level approach in terms of distinct educational cultures. Therefore, the research involved two studies conducted on undergraduates from Argentina and Spain: The first one was aimed at analyzing the psychometric features of the Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students (ASSIST) whereas the second was focused on examining the learning approaches profiles of high and low achievers attending the same major (Psychology) in two different educational cultures (Spain and Argentina). The scale’s original internal structure, examined on a sample of 400 participants (50% Spanish), was verified except for one item, which was fatherly eliminated. The resulting structure was tested and proven verified in a new sample (N = 1,334; 58.3% Spanish) by confirmatory factor analysis, factorial invariance, and internal consistency studies. External validity evidence was examined as well. Additionally, norms to be used in the professional field were calculated.

Profiles of learning approaches by academic achievement from each country were examined by latent class analysis. In both cases, high achievers reported higher and more frequent use of the Deep and Strategic approaches and lower and less frequent usage of the Surface one. Further studies should replicate these analyses in undergraduates attending other majors in order to test the hypothesis sustaining these findings’ generalization.

Individuals differ in their ability to deal with unpredictable environments. Could impaired performances on learning an unpredictable cue-criteria relationship in a laboratory task be associated with impaired learning of complex skills in a natural setting? We focused on a multiple-cue probability learning (MCPL) laboratory task and on the natural setting of pilot training. We used data from three selection sessions and from the three corresponding selected pilot student classes of a national airline pilot selection and training system. First, applicants took an MCPL task at the selection stage (N = 556; N = 701; N = 412). Then, pilot trainees selected from the applicant pools (N = 44; N = 60; N = 28) followed the training for 2.5 to 3 yrs. Differences in final MCPL performance were associated with pilot training difficulties. Indeed, poor MCPL performers experienced almost twice as many pilot training difficulties as better MCPL performers (44.0% and 25.0%, respectively).