2.  Evidence of the relationship between approaches to learning and experiences of the teaching-learning environment at the group level › Quantitative studies  Preliminary results of the interaction at the individual level › Three cases 14.6.2010 Sari Lindblom-Ylänne 2

3.  Anna Parpala  Henna Rytkönen  Erkki Komulainen  Liisa Postareff  Saara Repo  Mia Ruohoniemi  Anne Haarala-Muhonen  Viivi Virtanen  Nina Katajavuori  Laura Hirsto  Topi Litmanen 14.6.2010 Sari Lindblom-Ylänne 3

4.  Describe students’ aims and processes they apply when trying to reach their aims  Contextual and dynamic in nature  Deep approach › Intention to maximise understanding › Based on interest in the subject matter  Surface approach › Intention to coupe with the course requirements › Routine fact memorisation › Related to an experience of high workload  Organised studying › Strategic approach; organised studying and effort management › Intention to succeed well 14.6.2010 Sari Lindblom-Ylänne 4

5.  There is empirical evidence that approaches are related to › characteristics of the teaching-learning environment › discipline of study › motivation to studying › regulation of studying › personal epistemology 14.6.2010 Sari Lindblom-Ylänne 5

6. Scales Teaching for understandingAlignment Staff enthusiasm and support Interest and relevance Construct. feedback Support from other students Deep approach.37.23.29.34.27.15 Intention to understand.25.27.20.32.24.20 Organised studying.23.30.24.42.24.20 Surface approach -.33-.38-.30-.38-.16-.15 14.6.2010 Sari Lindblom-Ylänne 6

7. 14.6.2010 Sari Lindblom-Ylänne 7

8.  Quantitative data show that the approaches do not change much (at least not easily) during Bachelor studies  Evidence of individual variation › Some students are “immune” to the demands and characteristics of the teaching-learning environment › Some students are easily affected by the environment 14.6.2010 Sari Lindblom-Ylänne 8

9. 14.6.2010 Sari Lindblom-Ylänne 9

10.  I have a slow study pace and I need a long time to learn something. It’s a disappointment that courses are so short. I seem to be stuck in repetition and I never have enough time move to a critical and analytical level. The teacher was very sympathetic, but the course wasn’t a positive learning experience for me. There was such hurry all the time, the teacher hardly had time to breath. I attended all lectures, but could not follow. I totally lost it. I tried to read the course book alongside with the lectures, but I got mixed up. The teaching lacked a rhythm and a structure. It was very difficult for me to form a general picture. Had this course been longer, I would have learned better. Without reading the book I wouldn’t have learned anything. 14.6.2010 Sari Lindblom-Ylänne 10

11.  Compared to her average scores on the approaches to learning scales, Student 1 scored in this specific course › much lower on deep approach (3.75 → 2.50) › intention to understand almost the same (4.25→4.0) › organised studying almost the same (3.25 →3.0) › much higher on surface approach (2.75 →4.25)  The teacher’s fast pace seemed to hinder learning  Destructive friction? 14.6.2010 Sari Lindblom-Ylänne 11

12.  I learn best when I’m able to listen and make notes at the same time. The best for me is if a teacher gives us the notes before the lecture so that I don’t have to write so much. Then I complete the teacher’s notes while listening. I usually go through my notes after the lecture; at least I glance through them. I have to say that this teacher’s notes were not very clear. They lacked structure, and it was unclear where one topic ended and the other begun. However, I like the way the teacher taught, his way of speaking. His talking was more understandable than his notes. I tried to complete his unclear notes by writing as much as possible during the lectures. I think it was even good for me that I had to be active and write myself, but the teacher could have taught in a slower pace. My general picture of the contents is not very coherent, at least it could be better.  14.6.2010 Sari Lindblom-Ylänne 12

13.  Compared to her average scores on the approaches to learning scales, Student 2 scored in this specific course › higher on deep approach (3.25 → 4.0) › higher on intention to understand (3.75 →5.0) › higher on organised studying (3.0→3.75) › much lower on surface approach (2.75 →1.5)  Teacher’s fast pace seemed to increase the student’s own activities and push her to high-quality learning  Constructive friction? 14.6.2010 Sari Lindblom-Ylänne 13

14.  A reason for me not to participate in lectures is too slow pace and too simple contents. I have a certain system, which I always follow: rule of three. First I listen in lectures, then I go through the notes at home and I don’t go to the next topic before I have understood it. Then I read the materials again before the exam. When I understand, I remember better. It is not memorising. This course was a pleasant experience. I participated in almost all lectures and really went through the contents at home. In addition to the teacher’s material, I made own notes, not everything, but the interesting ones. In this way I remember them better. 14.6.2010 Sari Lindblom-Ylänne 14

15.  Compared to his average scores on the approaches to learning scales, Student 3 scored in this specific course › much higher on deep approach (2.75 → 4.0) › intention to understand almost the same (4.5 →4.75) › higher on organised studying (4.0→4.75) › surface approach almost the same (2.5 →2.25) 14.6.2010 Sari Lindblom-Ylänne 15

16.  Interaction between the learner and his or her teaching-learning environment is complex  At the group level approaches to learning seem more stable  At the individual level more contextual variation › More research is needed on the specific factors affecting the interaction between approaches to learning and the teaching-learning environment 14.6.2010 Sari Lindblom-Ylänne 16

17.  Haarala-Muhonen, A., Ruohoniemi, M., Katajavuori, N. & Lindblom-Ylänne S. (in press). Comparison of students’ perceptions of their teaching-learning environments in three professional academic disciplines – a valuable tool for quality enhancement. Accepted for publication. Learning Environments Research.  Parpala, A, Lindblom-Ylänne, S., Komulainen, E. & Entwistle, N. (2010). Students’ experiences of the teaching-learning environment, approaches to learning and their relation in two different contexts. Manuscript under review.  Parpala, A., Lindblom-Ylänne, S., Komulainen, E., Litmanen, T. & Hirsto, L. (in press). Students’ approaches to learning and their experiences of the teaching-learning environment in different disciplines. British Journal of Educational Psychology.  Parpala, A., Lindblom-Ylänne, S. & Rytkönen, H. (in press). Students' conceptions of good teaching in three different disciplines. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education.  Ruohoniemi, M. & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (2009). Student perspectives on factors enhancing and preventing their learning. International Journal of Academic Development, 14 (1), 69–81.  Ruohoniemi, M., Parpala, A., Lindblom-Ylänne, S. & Katajavuori, N. (in press). Relationships between students’ approaches to learning, perceptions of the teaching- learning environment, and study success – a case study of third-year veterinary students. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education. 14.6.2010 Sari Lindblom-Ylänne 17