11.07.2015 Views

Complete thesis - Murdoch University

Complete thesis - Murdoch University

Complete thesis - Murdoch University

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

As indicated previously (see Table 5.2), the first four scales determine Meaning Orientation,and the rest Reproduction.The ASI breakdown for the student participants are indicated in Figures 8.25, 8.26, 8.27 and8.28. The comparison is based on a tentative mapping (see Table 8.12). Future researchshould examine more closely the relevance of such a mapping. Informed by Norton et al(2004)’s approach, a comparison between ASI and RoLI results is based on matching orTable 8.11: Summary of ASI subScales expandedSubScaleDefinitionDA Deep approach active questioning in learningCA Comprehension learning readiness to map out subject area and think divergentlyRI Relating ideas relating to other parts of the courseUE Use of evidence relating evidence to conclusionsSA Surface approach pre occupation with memorisationIP Improvidence over-cautious reliance on detailsFF Fear of failure pessimism and anxiety about academic outcomesSB Syllabus boundedness relying on staff to define learning tasksTable 8.12: Mapping of subScalesASI RoLIDA SDICA MWURI RIDUE INDSA MAR/MBUIP FAC/DERFFSBbettering mapped scores. Higher scores than the ASI on deep elements and lower scores thansurface define ‘better’. ‘Match’ is defined to allow for a tolerance of 10% either way on thescore (ie 80%/85% or 85%/80% are both considered matches, although the first is technically‘better’ while the second is technically ‘poorer’). Of course, for Reproduction and Surface thelower score is considered as ‘better’). Students who showed four or more (of the six mappedASI subscales) ‘better’ or ‘matched’ elements were described as having a congruent profile. Astudent who has a RoLI profile which is incongruent with the ASI results shows lower scoreson the deep elements and higher scores on the surface elements.Based on this interpretation, Students 2 and 4 (Alaina and Vaughn) exhibit profiles that arecongruent, while Students 1 and 3 (Markus and Dermot) are inconsistent – this is indicatedby an equal number of better/matched scales to poorer.382

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!