© 2003, university of glamorgan learning to learn? a report on a longitudinal study of the learning...
TRANSCRIPT
© 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 StubbsUniversity 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 subject’s 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
HypothesisWhat 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 module’s results
© 2003, University of Glamorgan
Example: Theorist score reduced
012345
Activist Reflector Theorist Pragmatist GeoMean
Stage 1Stage 2
Theo Slight-Downe1 = “very low”5 = “very strong”
© 2003, University of Glamorgan
Example: Arithmetic mean same. Geometric mean slightly lower
012345
Activist Reflector Theorist Pragmatist GeoMean
Stage 1Stage 2
Les Even1 = “very low”5 = “very strong”
Stage 1 scored 3-5-3-3. Arithmetic mean 3.5. Geometric mean 3.4087.Stage 2 scored 4-3-5-2. Arithmetic mean 3.5! Geometric mean 3.3098.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!
012345
Activist Reflector Theorist Pragmatist GeoMean
Stage 1Stage 2
Peter Perfect1 = “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
012345
Activist Reflector Theorist Pragmatist GeoMean
Stage 1Stage 2
Ann Omaly1 = “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
012345
Activist Reflector Theorist Pragmatist GeoMean
Stage 1Stage 2
Des Goode1 = “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
012345
Activist Reflector Theorist Pragmatist GeoMean
Stage 1Stage 2
G M Downward1 = “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 resultsNew research student to help with this
© 2003, University of Glamorgan
Thank you
Dave W Farthing & Dr Geneen StubbsUniversity of Glamorgan, UK