Transcript The interaction between students' approaches to learning


Evidence of the relationship between
approaches to learning and experiences
of the teaching-learning environment at
the group level
› Quantitative studies

Preliminary results of the interaction at
the individual level
› Three cases
Sari Lindblom-Ylänne
14.6.2010
2











Anna Parpala
Henna Rytkönen
Erkki Komulainen
Liisa Postareff
Saara Repo
Mia Ruohoniemi
Anne Haarala-Muhonen
Viivi Virtanen
Nina Katajavuori
Laura Hirsto
Topi Litmanen
Sari Lindblom-Ylänne
14.6.2010
3


Describe students’ aims and processes they
apply when trying to reach their aims
Contextual and dynamic in nature
Deep approach

Surface approach

Organised studying

› Intention to maximise understanding
› Based on interest in the subject matter
› Intention to coupe with the course requirements
› Routine fact memorisation
› Related to an experience of high workload
› Strategic approach; organised studying and effort
management
› Intention to succeed well
Sari Lindblom-Ylänne
14.6.2010
4

There is empirical evidence that
approaches are related to
› characteristics of the teaching-learning
›
›
›
›
environment
discipline of study
motivation to studying
regulation of studying
personal epistemology
Sari Lindblom-Ylänne
14.6.2010
5
Scales
Staff
Interest
Teaching for
enthusiasm and
understanding Alignment and support relevance
Construct.
feedback
Support
from
other
students
Deep approach
.37
.23
.29
.34
.27
.15
Intention to
understand
.25
.27
.20
.32
.24
.20
Organised
studying
.23
.30
.24
.42
.24
.20
Surface
approach
-.33
-.38
-.30
-.38
-.16
-.15
Sari Lindblom-Ylänne
14.6.2010
6
Te
ac
hi
ng
fo
r
un
de
rs
ta
nd
in
E3
g
St
E
af
2
fs
Al
ig
up
m
po
en
rt
t
an
d
en
E4
th
In
us
te
ia
re
m
st
an
d
E5
re
le
Co
va
ns
nc
tru
e
ct
iv
e
E6
fe
Su
ed
ba
pp
ck
or
tf
ro
m
st
ud
en
A1
ts
D
ee
p
ap
A2
pr
oa
O
rg
ch
an
ise
A3
d
st
In
ud
te
nt
yin
io
g
n
to
un
de
rs
A4
ta
Su
nd
rfa
ce
ap
pr
oa
ch
E1
5,00
4,50
4,00
3,50
3,00
2,50
2,00
Agriculture
Biosciences
Pharmacy
Science
Veterinary med.
Arts
Behavioural Sc.
Law
Social Sc.
Theology
Sari Lindblom-Ylänne
14.6.2010
7
Quantitative data show that the
approaches do not change much (at
least not easily) during Bachelor studies
 Evidence of individual variation

› Some students are “immune” to the
demands and characteristics of the
teaching-learning environment
› Some students are easily affected by the
environment
Sari Lindblom-Ylänne
14.6.2010
8
Sari Lindblom-Ylänne
14.6.2010
9

I have a slow study pace and I need a long time
to learn something. It’s a disappointment that
courses are so short. I seem to be stuck in
repetition and I never have enough time move to
a critical and analytical level. The teacher was
very sympathetic, but the course wasn’t a
positive learning experience for me. There was
such hurry all the time, the teacher hardly had
time to breath. I attended all lectures, but could
not follow. I totally lost it. I tried to read the course
book alongside with the lectures, but I got mixed
up. The teaching lacked a rhythm and a
structure. It was very difficult for me to form a
general picture. Had this course been longer, I
would have learned better. Without reading the
book I wouldn’t have learned anything.
Sari Lindblom-Ylänne
14.6.2010
10

Compared to her average scores on the
approaches to learning scales, Student 1
scored in this specific course
› much lower on deep approach (3.75 → 2.50)
› intention to understand almost the same
(4.25→4.0)
› organised studying almost the same (3.25 →3.0)
› much higher on surface approach (2.75 →4.25)
The teacher’s fast pace seemed to hinder
learning
 Destructive friction?

Sari Lindblom-Ylänne
14.6.2010
11

I learn best when I’m able to listen and make notes at
the same time. The best for me is if a teacher gives us
the notes before the lecture so that I don’t have to write
so much. Then I complete the teacher’s notes while
listening. I usually go through my notes after the lecture;
at least I glance through them. I have to say that this
teacher’s notes were not very clear. They lacked
structure, and it was unclear where one topic ended
and the other begun. However, I like the way the
teacher taught, his way of speaking. His talking was
more understandable than his notes. I tried to complete
his unclear notes by writing as much as possible during
the lectures. I think it was even good for me that I had to
be active and write myself, but the teacher could have
taught in a slower pace. My general picture of the
contents is not very coherent, at least it could be better.

Sari Lindblom-Ylänne
14.6.2010
12

Compared to her average scores on the
approaches to learning scales, Student 2
scored in this specific course
›
›
›
›
higher on deep approach (3.25 → 4.0)
higher on intention to understand (3.75 →5.0)
higher on organised studying (3.0→3.75)
much lower on surface approach (2.75 →1.5)
Teacher’s fast pace seemed to increase
the student’s own activities and push her to
high-quality learning
 Constructive friction?

Sari Lindblom-Ylänne
14.6.2010
13

A reason for me not to participate in lectures is
too slow pace and too simple contents. I have a
certain system, which I always follow: rule of
three. First I listen in lectures, then I go through the
notes at home and I don’t go to the next topic
before I have understood it. Then I read the
materials again before the exam. When I
understand, I remember better. It is not
memorising. This course was a pleasant
experience. I participated in almost all lectures
and really went through the contents at home. In
addition to the teacher’s material, I made own
notes, not everything, but the interesting ones. In
this way I remember them better.
Sari Lindblom-Ylänne
14.6.2010
14

Compared to his average scores on the
approaches to learning scales, Student 3
scored in this specific course
› much higher on deep approach (2.75 → 4.0)
› intention to understand almost the same
(4.5 →4.75)
› higher on organised studying (4.0→4.75)
› surface approach almost the same (2.5
→2.25)
Sari Lindblom-Ylänne
14.6.2010
15
Interaction between the learner and his or
her teaching-learning environment is
complex
 At the group level approaches to learning
seem more stable
 At the individual level more contextual
variation

› More research is needed on the specific factors
affecting the interaction between approaches
to learning and the teaching-learning
environment
Sari Lindblom-Ylänne
14.6.2010
16






Haarala-Muhonen, A., Ruohoniemi, M., Katajavuori, N. & Lindblom-Ylänne S. (in press).
Comparison of students’ perceptions of their teaching-learning environments in three
professional academic disciplines – a valuable tool for quality enhancement. Accepted
for publication. Learning Environments Research.
Parpala, A, Lindblom-Ylänne, S., Komulainen, E. & Entwistle, N. (2010). Students’
experiences of the teaching-learning environment, approaches to learning and their
relation in two different contexts. Manuscript under review.
Parpala, A., Lindblom-Ylänne, S., Komulainen, E., Litmanen, T. & Hirsto, L. (in press).
Students’ approaches to learning and their experiences of the teaching-learning
environment in different disciplines. British Journal of Educational Psychology.
Parpala, A., Lindblom-Ylänne, S. & Rytkönen, H. (in press). Students' conceptions of good
teaching in three different disciplines. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education.
Ruohoniemi, M. & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (2009). Student perspectives on factors
enhancing and preventing their learning. International Journal of Academic
Development, 14 (1), 69–81.
Ruohoniemi, M., Parpala, A., Lindblom-Ylänne, S. & Katajavuori, N. (in press).
Relationships between students’ approaches to learning, perceptions of the teachinglearning environment, and study success – a case study of third-year veterinary students.
Journal of Veterinary Medical Education.
Sari Lindblom-Ylänne
14.6.2010
17