© 2003, University of Glamorgan Learning to learn? A report on a longitudinal study of the learning styles of computing undergraduates Dave W Farthing

© 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


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


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


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


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”


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”


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


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


Example: Theorist score reduced

012345

Activist Reflector Theorist Pragmatist GeoMean

Stage 1Stage 2

Theo Slight-Downe1 = “very low”5 = “very strong”


Example: Arithmetic mean same. Geometric mean slightly lower

012345


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.


Relationships

Do the profiles predict good and bad academic performances?

Did good and bad performances result from strong and weak learning style profiles?


Strong and weak profiles

Do the profile predict good and bad academic performances? We looked at the strongest and weakest

profiles…


Example: Should be top performer!

012345


Stage 1Stage 2

Peter Perfect1 = “very low”5 = “very strong”

Only middling results: 7 x C grades, 1 x B, 2 x A.


Example: Badly weakened profile

012345


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.


Good and bad performance

Did they result from strong and weak learning style profiles? We looked at the best and worst academic

results…


Example: Unremarkable profile

012345


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.


Example: Weakening profile

012345


Stage 1Stage 2

G M Downward1 = “very low”5 = “very strong”

Another good performer.7 x A grades, 3 x B grades.


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


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


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


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


Thank you

Dave W Farthing & Dr Geneen StubbsUniversity of Glamorgan, UK

Documents

© 2003, University of Glamorgan Learning to learn? A report on a longitudinal study of the learning styles of computing undergraduates Dave W Farthing