learning-styles
learning-styles
learning-styles
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
LSRC reference Section 7<br />
page 96/97<br />
Students have to rank each statement according to:<br />
how close the statement is to their own way of thinking,<br />
in order to reveal their ideas about <strong>learning</strong><br />
their relative disagreement or agreement with<br />
comments about studying made by other students,<br />
in order to reveal their approaches to studying and<br />
preferences for different types of course and teaching.<br />
Each statement is ranked 1–5 on a Likert scale and<br />
students are encouraged to avoid choosing ‘3’. (It is not<br />
clear why the inventory does not use a four-point scale<br />
instead). A time limit is not suggested and students<br />
are asked to ‘work through the comments, giving your<br />
immediate response. In deciding your answers, think<br />
in terms of this particular lecture course. It is also<br />
important that you answer all the questions: check<br />
you have’ (CRLI 1997; original emphasis).<br />
Evaluation by authors<br />
Most of the internal and external evaluations<br />
of Entwistle’s inventories have focused on the ASI<br />
and RASI: because of the evolutionary nature of the<br />
inventories, we review the earlier inventories for<br />
their accounts of validity and reliability, together<br />
with the small number of evaluations of ASSIST.<br />
Reliability<br />
The ASI was developed through a series of pilots, with<br />
item analyses (Ramsden and Entwistle 1981). In an<br />
earlier study, Entwistle, Hanley and Hounsell (1979)<br />
claimed high alpha coefficients of reliability as the basis<br />
for retaining the six best items for each scale in the<br />
final version of ASI. However, it is worth noting that<br />
seven out of 12 of these have coefficients below 0.7.<br />
We have re-ordered the scales in relation to each<br />
approach and type of motivation as shown in Table 33:<br />
Table 33<br />
Reliability of ASI<br />
sub-scales<br />
Adapted from data<br />
presented in Entwistle,<br />
Hanley and Hounsell<br />
(1979)<br />
Deep-level approach<br />
Comprehension <strong>learning</strong><br />
Surface-level approach<br />
Operation <strong>learning</strong><br />
Organised study methods<br />
Strategic approach<br />
Achievement motivation<br />
Intrinsic motivation<br />
Extrinsic motivation<br />
Fear of failure<br />
Disillusioned attitudes<br />
8 items, 0.60<br />
8 items, 0.65<br />
8 items, 0.50<br />
8 items, 0.62<br />
6 items, 0.72<br />
10 items, 0.55<br />
6 items, 0.59<br />
6 items, 0.74<br />
6 items, 0.70<br />
6 items, 0.69<br />
6 items, 0.71<br />
In an evaluation of the ASSIST, a study of 817 first-year<br />
students from 10 contrasting departments in three<br />
long-established and three recently established<br />
British universities offered the following coefficients<br />
of reliability for three approaches to studying:<br />
deep approach (0.84); strategic approach (0.80)<br />
and surface apathetic approach (0.87) (CRLI 1997).<br />
Another study involved 1284 first-year students from<br />
three long-established and three recently established<br />
British universities, 466 first-year students from<br />
a Scottish technological university and 219 students<br />
from a ‘historically disadvantaged’ South African<br />
university of predominantly Black and Coloured<br />
students. It aimed to analyse the factor structure<br />
of ASSIST at sub-scale level and to carry out cluster<br />
analysis to see how far patterns of sub-scale scores<br />
retained their integrity across contrasting groups<br />
of students. High coefficients of reliability were found<br />
for sub-scales of a deep approach (0.84), a surface<br />
apathetic approach (0.80) and a strategic approach<br />
(0.87) (Entwistle, Tait and McCune 2000). The study<br />
also compared sub-scale factor structure for students<br />
who did well and those who did relatively poorly in<br />
summative assessments.<br />
Validity<br />
In a study of 767 first-year, second-term students<br />
from nine departments in three universities in the UK,<br />
separate factor analyses were carried out on the ASI<br />
for arts, social science and science students. According<br />
to Entwistle, this confirmed a robust three-factor<br />
structure: deep approach and comprehension <strong>learning</strong>;<br />
surface approach with operation <strong>learning</strong>; organised<br />
study methods and achievement-oriented <strong>learning</strong><br />
(Entwistle, Hanley and Hounsell 1979). There was<br />
also evidence in this study that the ASI enabled some<br />
prediction of the departments in which students would<br />
be likely to adopt surface or deep approaches.<br />
In a study in 1981, Ramsden and Entwistle<br />
administered the ASI with the Course Perceptions<br />
Questionnaire to 2208 students from 66 academic<br />
departments in six contrasting disciplines in British<br />
polytechnics and universities. Factor analysis<br />
confirmed the construct validity of the three<br />
orientations (meaning, reproducing and achievement).<br />
From analysis of responses to the Course Perceptions<br />
Questionnaire, they concluded that there were<br />
correlations between students’ higher-than-average<br />
scores on meaning orientation and high ratings<br />
of good teaching, appropriate workload and freedom<br />
in <strong>learning</strong>. These contextual factors were linked<br />
to those in the ASI to form new items in the ASSIST.<br />
In relation to the ASSIST, the Centre for Research<br />
into Learning and Instruction (CRLI) (1997,10)<br />
claimed that factor analysis of items in ASSIST is<br />
confirmed from diverse studies and that ‘these factors,<br />
and the aspects of studying they have been designed<br />
to tap … [provide] well-established analytic categories<br />
for describing general tendencies in studying and<br />
their correlates’.