We think you have liked this presentation. If you wish to download it, please recommend it to your friends in any social system. Share buttons are a little bit lower. Thank you!
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byCody Padilla
Modified over 2 years ago
© 2003, University of Glamorgan Learning to learn? A report on a longitudinal study of the learning styles of computing undergraduates Dave W Farthing & Dr Geneen Stubbs University of Glamorgan, UK
© 2003, University of Glamorgan An interim report This is a three-year longitudinal project seeking to identify the learning styles of students enrolled on our BSc Computing Scheme Current progress Completed two years, about to start third year Compared results from a Stage 1 group with the same students results at beginning of Stage 2 Results from 62 at Stage 1, 57 at Stage 2, 44 both sets Also looked at two successive Stage 1 groups Results from 62 in 2001, 126 in 2002
© 2003, University of Glamorgan Original intentions Information on learning styles can be fed back to lecturers to guide practice in class and preparation of new distance learning material To confirm that students learning styles improve as they progress through H.E. Hoping to discover what kinds of learning style tends to produce stronger results, and what tends to produce weaker results N.B. Our objectives are evolving Will explain this later
© 2003, University of Glamorgan Honey & Mumford LSQ Honey & Mumford devised a four dimensional inventory of learning styles Activists – like to participate, welcome new challenges and experiences Reflectors – like to think about things before taking action Theorists – like to see how things fit into an overall pattern, logical and objective Pragmatists – like to see how things work in practice, enjoy experimenting We chose H & M because of Pragmatist relevance to practical subject like computing
© 2003, University of Glamorgan Honey & Mumford LSQ The Learning Style Questionnaire (LSQ) has eighty true/false questions about the subjects behavioural preferences A quarter of the questions test a preference for the Activist style, a quarter test the Reflector style, and so on Each subject gets a score on the scale 0 – 20 for each style The scores are normalised to 5=very strong, 4=strong, 3=moderate, 2=low and 1=very low
© 2003, University of Glamorgan Honey & Mumford LSQ Commonly people exhibit a preference for certain ways of learning e.g. a strong Activist score Some people exhibit no preference, no weaknesses they have an even profile It is entirely feasible for someone to score high or even very high in all four dimensions H&M claim they should be adaptable to many kinds of learning situation H&M suggest that the higher & more even the profile, the better the performance This is what we meant by improve
© 2003, University of Glamorgan Hypothesis What we expected Students with stronger profiles should achieve better academic results We assumed that most students profiles would improve over time, that is higher scores across the four dimensions especially improvement in their weakest dimension(s) i.e. higher and/or more even profile, which should result in them being more able to adapt to different learning situations
© 2003, University of Glamorgan What we found Overall, profiles did not improve during their first year (from beginning of Stage 1 to Stage 2) 19 students improved 5 saw no significant change 20 students exhibited lower scores and/or a less even profile Profiles did not correlate with performance Individual profiles did not correlate with their overall performance that year No elements (dimensions) of the profiles correlated with any one modules results
© 2003, University of Glamorgan Example: Theorist score reduced 1 = very low 5 = very strong
© 2003, University of Glamorgan Example: Arithmetic mean same. Geometric mean slightly lower 1 = very low 5 = very strong Stage 1 scored Arithmetic mean 3.5. Geometric mean Stage 2 scored Arithmetic mean 3.5! Geometric mean Demonstrates that geometric mean rewards a more even profile.
© 2003, University of Glamorgan Relationships Do the profiles predict good and bad academic performances? Did good and bad performances result from strong and weak learning style profiles?
© 2003, University of Glamorgan Strong and weak profiles Do the profile predict good and bad academic performances? We looked at the strongest and weakest profiles…
© 2003, University of Glamorgan Example: Should be top performer! 1 = very low 5 = very strong Only middling results: 7 x C grades, 1 x B, 2 x A.
© 2003, University of Glamorgan Example: Badly weakened profile 1 = very low 5 = very strong Wide variety of grades, from 3 x A grades to 2 x D grades. Had studied International Foundation Year – good staff/student ratio. Possibly entered Stage 1 with confidence, but had to fit into mass education.
© 2003, University of Glamorgan Good and bad performance Did they result from strong and weak learning style profiles? We looked at the best and worst academic results…
© 2003, University of Glamorgan Example: Unremarkable profile 1 = very low 5 = very strong One of our top performers that year. 8 x A grades, 2 x B grades.
© 2003, University of Glamorgan Example: Weakening profile 1 = very low 5 = very strong Another good performer. 7 x A grades, 3 x B grades.
© 2003, University of Glamorgan Weakest students Significant result! The weakest students failed to submit both LSQs We looked for the LSQs for all of our lowest performing students, but they failed to submit either one or both of them Not so surprising since the weakest are less likely to progress to Stage 2
© 2003, University of Glamorgan Conclusion A learning style profile cannot predict performance E.g. Pragmatic learning style does not ensure a good result in a pragmatic subject such as programming LSQ does not take into account aptitude for the subject maturity and approach to study peer influences financial and domestic problems With no intervention on our part, students did not appear to improve their learning style profiles during the first year Learning styles profiles not consistent year on year
© 2003, University of Glamorgan Remember this? What we expected Students with stronger profiles should achieve better academic results We assumed that most students profiles would improve over time, that is higher scores across the four dimensions especially improvement in their weakest dimension(s) i.e. higher and/or more even profile, which should result in them being more able to adapt to different learning situations
© 2003, University of Glamorgan Revised intentions To confirm whether Honey & Mumford LSQ is a poor measure of learning ability and a poor predictor of academic performance The effect of intervention on poor profiles E.g. helping students with weaknesses on some dimensions, using other facilities in Blackboard To compare the profiles of staff with students To investigate whether any other learning style inventories give better results New research student to help with this
© 2003, University of Glamorgan Thank you Dave W Farthing & Dr Geneen Stubbs University of Glamorgan, UK
The. of and a to in is you that it he for.
Learner-Centered Teaching Elizabeth Normandy Teaching and Learning Center.
The Problem Statement in the Research Paper The problem provides the context for the research study and typically generates questions which the research.
Teams & Motivation. Tools & Techniques for putting your team together Use Belbins Team roles to find out someones most effective role. Consider personality.
Teachers as researchers and the development of teacher professionalism Dr Ken Chow.
LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING Lecture 11 – Scientific Reasoning I.
1 Train the statistical trainer Module 6. 2 Who is this course for? This module is concerned with developing the training skills of District Office staff.
MAESTRO: Learning outcomes using ICT-based resources for Key Stage 3 mathematics Don PasseyJacqui Ackroyd Senior Research FellowHead of Maths Department.
1 Psychological Practical (Year 2) PS2001 Introduction Dr. John Beech.
Improving Students Learning Through Internships: An Outcomes-Based Approach Michael S. Miller, Dean of Student Affairs Joseph Coyne, Assistant Dean and.
Square Peg and Round Hole… As parents and educators, the change in grading systems requires a fundamental switch in our thinking… 4=A 1=F 2=D 3=B.
Self-efficacy, self-esteem and performance among students taking research methods Dr Andy Lane.
Overview: The purpose of our study was to observe the effects of journal assignments (given for class preparation) upon student performance as well as.
Learning Styles Dr Robin Douglas. Gibb’s Reflective Cycle Gibbs identified a series of 6 steps to aid reflective practice, these elements make up a.
Improving student learning by changing assessment across entire programmes Graham Gibbs.
Maximising learning from feedback: three approaches Devin Sapsford George Zorinyants Richard Carr.
Assessment and feedback Principles, practice and technologies.
Denison Culture Survey Results Debrief and Action Planning Prepared by: Insert Your Name Here Insert Unit Name and/or Logo here.
Last weeks question What is a DEVIATION IQ? In your answer, explain how the deviation IQ differs from the IQ as defined by Stern. What is the advantage.
TIME MANAEMENT STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE Nursing Study Skills.
© Curriculum Foundation1 Part 2 From theory to practice Part 2 From theory to practice.
Valid or Invalid – Biased or Unbiased An investigation into whether students choose internet search results based on quality and validity of information.
Questions What is the relationship between ‘research designs’ and ‘research strategies’? Which method of experiments, within subjects or between subjects.
Greetings from Southampton. Introduction We are entering a period in which the occupational therapy curriculum worldwide is undergoing dramatic transformation.
Assessment for Learning Promoting Formative Strategies A quick reminder ….What does AfL involve in the classroom? Teachers having an understanding of the.
The Cost of Authoring with a Knowledge Layer Judy Kay and Lichao Li School of Information Technologies The University of Sydney, Australia.
8 October, 2013 Development of Creativity at Different School Age D. Penkauskienė, R. Jarienė Modern Didactics center.
This course is not designed to discuss the merits of the TOP, it is intended as a tool to effectively implement the TOP within your service.
We dont belong – problems of progression for foundation degree students We dont belong – problems of progression for foundation degree students Pamela.
Prepared and Presented By Sally Al-Gazzar September 2013.
© 2016 SlidePlayer.com Inc. All rights reserved.