learning-styles

Recommendations

Info

Figure 12 Conceptual map of components of effective studying from ASSIST Source: Centre for Research into Learning and Instruction (1997) Deep, strategic Approaches to studying Negative Surface, apathetic Holist Serialist Negative Deep Strategic Surface Relating ideas Using evidence Time management Organised studying Fear of failure Routine memorising Interest in ideas and monitoring understanding Alertness to assessment and monitoring studying Syllabus-bound focus on minimum requirements Intention to seek meaning for yourself Intention to achieve the highest possible grades Intention to cope minimally with course requirements In addition to items refined from factor analyses, the ASSIST had new scales to improve the descriptions of studying and reactions to teaching, and to include metacognition and self-regulation in the strategic approach. Meaning and reproducing orientations from the ASI were recategorised in the ASSIST as conceptions of learning – namely, whether students see the purpose of learning as transforming or reproducing knowledge. Approaches were redefined as deep, strategic and surface apathetic. ASSIST also introduced new items to take account of perceptions of environment, workload and the organisation and design of the course. Items are presented in three sections, as follows. 1 What is learning? – this section comprises six items to test whether students see learning as being about, for example, ‘making sure you remember things well’ or ‘seeing things in a different and more meaningful way’. 2 Approaches to studying – this section comprises 52 items based on comments about studying made by students in previous studies, covering deep, surface and strategic approaches, and reproducing, meaning and achievement orientations. Students have to agree or disagree with statements such as ‘I go over the work I’ve done carefully to check the reasoning and that it makes sense’ and ‘Often I find myself questioning things I hear in lectures and read in books’. 3 Preferences for different types of course organisation and teaching – this section comprises eight items asking students to say how far they like, for example, ‘exams which allow me to show that I’ve thought about the course material for myself’.
LSRC reference Section 7 page 96/97 Students have to rank each statement according to: how close the statement is to their own way of thinking, in order to reveal their ideas about learning their relative disagreement or agreement with comments about studying made by other students, in order to reveal their approaches to studying and preferences for different types of course and teaching. Each statement is ranked 1–5 on a Likert scale and students are encouraged to avoid choosing ‘3’. (It is not clear why the inventory does not use a four-point scale instead). A time limit is not suggested and students are asked to ‘work through the comments, giving your immediate response. In deciding your answers, think in terms of this particular lecture course. It is also important that you answer all the questions: check you have’ (CRLI 1997; original emphasis). Evaluation by authors Most of the internal and external evaluations of Entwistle’s inventories have focused on the ASI and RASI: because of the evolutionary nature of the inventories, we review the earlier inventories for their accounts of validity and reliability, together with the small number of evaluations of ASSIST. Reliability The ASI was developed through a series of pilots, with item analyses (Ramsden and Entwistle 1981). In an earlier study, Entwistle, Hanley and Hounsell (1979) claimed high alpha coefficients of reliability as the basis for retaining the six best items for each scale in the final version of ASI. However, it is worth noting that seven out of 12 of these have coefficients below 0.7. We have re-ordered the scales in relation to each approach and type of motivation as shown in Table 33: Table 33 Reliability of ASI sub-scales Adapted from data presented in Entwistle, Hanley and Hounsell (1979) Deep-level approach Comprehension learning Surface-level approach Operation learning Organised study methods Strategic approach Achievement motivation Intrinsic motivation Extrinsic motivation Fear of failure Disillusioned attitudes 8 items, 0.60 8 items, 0.65 8 items, 0.50 8 items, 0.62 6 items, 0.72 10 items, 0.55 6 items, 0.59 6 items, 0.74 6 items, 0.70 6 items, 0.69 6 items, 0.71 In an evaluation of the ASSIST, a study of 817 first-year students from 10 contrasting departments in three long-established and three recently established British universities offered the following coefficients of reliability for three approaches to studying: deep approach (0.84); strategic approach (0.80) and surface apathetic approach (0.87) (CRLI 1997). Another study involved 1284 first-year students from three long-established and three recently established British universities, 466 first-year students from a Scottish technological university and 219 students from a ‘historically disadvantaged’ South African university of predominantly Black and Coloured students. It aimed to analyse the factor structure of ASSIST at sub-scale level and to carry out cluster analysis to see how far patterns of sub-scale scores retained their integrity across contrasting groups of students. High coefficients of reliability were found for sub-scales of a deep approach (0.84), a surface apathetic approach (0.80) and a strategic approach (0.87) (Entwistle, Tait and McCune 2000). The study also compared sub-scale factor structure for students who did well and those who did relatively poorly in summative assessments. Validity In a study of 767 first-year, second-term students from nine departments in three universities in the UK, separate factor analyses were carried out on the ASI for arts, social science and science students. According to Entwistle, this confirmed a robust three-factor structure: deep approach and comprehension learning; surface approach with operation learning; organised study methods and achievement-oriented learning (Entwistle, Hanley and Hounsell 1979). There was also evidence in this study that the ASI enabled some prediction of the departments in which students would be likely to adopt surface or deep approaches. In a study in 1981, Ramsden and Entwistle administered the ASI with the Course Perceptions Questionnaire to 2208 students from 66 academic departments in six contrasting disciplines in British polytechnics and universities. Factor analysis confirmed the construct validity of the three orientations (meaning, reproducing and achievement). From analysis of responses to the Course Perceptions Questionnaire, they concluded that there were correlations between students’ higher-than-average scores on meaning orientation and high ratings of good teaching, appropriate workload and freedom in learning. These contextual factors were linked to those in the ASI to form new items in the ASSIST. In relation to the ASSIST, the Centre for Research into Learning and Instruction (CRLI) (1997,10) claimed that factor analysis of items in ASSIST is confirmed from diverse studies and that ‘these factors, and the aspects of studying they have been designed to tap … [provide] well-established analytic categories for describing general tendencies in studying and their correlates’.
Page 1 and 2:
LSRC reference Learning styles and
Page 3 and 4:
LSRC reference Learning styles and
Page 5 and 6:
LSRC reference Contents 1 9 13 37 4
Page 7 and 8:
LSRC reference Figures and tables L
Page 9 and 10:
LSRC reference Acknowledgements The
Page 11 and 12:
Section 1 A systematic review of le
Page 13 and 14:
LSRC reference Section 1 page 2/3 E
Page 15 and 16:
LSRC reference Section 1 page 4/5 T
Page 17 and 18:
LSRC reference Section 1 page 6/7 T
Page 19 and 20:
Figure 3 Vermunt’s model of learn
Page 21 and 22:
We devised this classificatory syst
Page 23 and 24:
The popular appeal of the notion th
Page 25 and 26:
Figure 5 Gregorc’s four-channel l
Page 27 and 28:
From the evidence available, we con
Page 29 and 30:
Table 1 Gregorc’s Mind Styles Mod
Page 31 and 32:
Table 2 Variables and factors in th
Page 33 and 34:
The measures Over 25 years, Dunn an
Page 35 and 36:
Table 4 Percentages of respondents
Page 37 and 38:
The BES instrument has elements for
Page 39 and 40:
Shwery (1994) also questioned aspec
Page 41 and 42:
However, the notion of ‘gifted’
Page 43 and 44:
Second, the model encourages teache
Page 45 and 46:
Table 6 Dunn and Dunn’s model and
Page 47 and 48:
The most influential member of the
Page 49 and 50:
Table 9 Studies of the interaction
Page 51 and 52:
Riding and Rayner (1998) do not def
Page 53 and 54: Implications for pedagogy Riding (2
Page 55 and 56: Section 5 Stable personality type L
Page 57 and 58: LSRC reference Section 5 page 48/49
Page 69 and 70: Section 6 Flexibly stable learning
Page 99 and 100: Section 7 Learning approaches and s
Page 103: LSRC reference Section 7 page 94/95
Page 127 and 128: Section 8 Implications for pedagogy
Page 141 and 142: Our recommendation in favour of inc
Page 143 and 144: As for the research evidence in fav
Page 145 and 146: Learning styles in practice: labell
Page 147 and 148: Table 44 13 learning-styles models
Page 149 and 150: It may be argued that it is importa
Page 151 and 152: The comparative neglect of knowledg
Page 153 and 154: LSRC reference page 146/147 Referen
Page 155 and 156:
LSRC reference References page 148/
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
LSRC reference page 166/167 Author(
Page 175 and 176:
LSRC reference Appendix 1 page 168/
Page 177 and 178:
Appendix 3 Glossary of terms LSRC r
Page 179 and 180:
LSRC reference Appendix 3 page 172/
show all

learning-styles

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?