الگوی ساختاری چندگروهی بین رویکرد یادگیری و تجارب شخصی و آموزشی در دو گروه دانشجویان علوم انسانی و علوم تحلیلی-ریاضی

نوع مقاله: پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استادیار روان شناسی تربیتی، دانشگاه کاشان

2 دانشیار مدیریت آموزشی دانشگاه کاشان

چکیده

هدف از پژوهش حاضر بررسی رابطه بین رویکردهای یادگیری (عمقی و سطحی) با تجارب شخصی و آموزشی دانشجویان در پایان دوره چهار ساله کارشناسی در دو گروه علوم انسانی و علوم تحلیلی-ریاضی است. برای این منظور 320 نفر از دانشجویان سال آخر دانشگاه اصفهان با روش نمونه‌گیری تصادفی خوشه‌ای انتخاب شدند. از پرسش‌نامه رویکرد یادگیری بیگز به منظور مطالعه رویکرد یادگیری دانشجویان و از پرسش‌نامه رشد تجارب شخصی و آموزشی برای اندازه‌گیری تجارب شخصی و آموزشی آنان در چهار بعد مهارت‌های شناختی، مهارت‌های محاسباتی، مهارت‌های خودنظم‌بخشی و مهارت‌های اجتماعی استفاده شد. نتایج نشان داد که در هر دو گروه علوم انسانی و علوم تحلیلی-ریاضی، بین رویکرد یادگیری عمقی (انگیزش عمقی و راهبرد عمقی) با تجارب شخصی و آموزشی دانشجویان رابطه مثبت و معنا‌داری وجود دارد (01/0p<). بین رویکرد یادگیری سطحی (انگیزش سطحی و راهبرد سطحی) و تجارب شخصی و آموزشی در گروه علوم محاسباتی-ریاضی، رابطه منفی گزارش شد (01/0p<). این در حالی بود که در گروه علوم انسانی اگرچه رابطه منفی بین ابعاد مختلف رویکرد یادگیری سطحی و تجارب شخصی و آموزشی مشاهده شد ولی تنها در بین انگیزش سطحی و رشد شناختی (18/0= r، 05/0p<) و راهبرد سطحی و رشد شناختی (24/0= r، 01/0p<) این رابطه معنا‌دار بود.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Multi-group structural models between learning approaches and educational-personal experiences among Students in human sciences and mathematical-analytical sciences

نویسندگان [English]

  • Masood Kiani 1
  • Hamid Rahimi 2
1 Assistants Professor in Educational Psychology, University of Kashan
2 Associate Professor in Educational Management, University of Kashan
چکیده [English]

The aim of this study to investigate the relationship between approaches to learning (surface and deep approaches) and educational-personal experiences. Population of the study included students majoring at human sciences and analytical sciences at university of Isfahan, from among which 320 senior students were selected through cluster sampling. Instruments in this study were two questionnaires, i.e., The Revised Two Factor Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F), which was used to measure approaches to learning among participants, and Personal and Educational Development Inventory (PEDI) which measured course experiences. A multi-group structural equation model (SEM) examining approaches to learning effects on educational-personal experiences by university majoring. The results indicated there was a significant positive relationship between deep approaches to learning (deep strategies and motivation) and student’s course experience among students majoring at human sciences and analytical sciences (P<0/01); thus, it was concluded that approaches to learning affected educational-personal experiences. One other finding in this study revealed there was a significant negative relationship between surface approaches to learning (surface strategies and motivation) and student’s educational-personal experiences among students majoring at analytical sciences (P<0/01). While, in students majoring at human sciences, there was a significant negative relationship between surface motivation to learning and student’s cognitive development ( ) and surface strategy and cognitive development ( ), but there was not significant relationships among the other aspect of surface approaches to learning and educational-personal experiences.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Learning Approaches
  • Educational-Personal Experiences
  • students
  • Humanity Sciences
  • Mathematical Sciences

پارسا، عبداله؛ ساکتی، پرویز (1386). رویکردهای یادگیری، نتایج یادگیری و ادراکات دانشجویان از برنامه درسی اجرا شده و دوره تحصیلی، مجله علوم اجتماعی و انسانی دانشگاه شیراز، 26 (3): 1-23.

زندوانیان نائینی، احمد؛ رحیمی، مهدی؛ پورطاهری، فروغ (1393). بررسی رابطه‌ رویکردهای یادگیری با عملکرد تحصیلی کیفی و کمی دانشجویان، پژوهش در یادگیری آموزشگاهی و مجازی، 1 (4): 29-41.

فرج الهی، مهران (1394). نقش راهبردهای مدیریت منابع یادگیری در پیشرفت تحصیلی دانش‌آموزان متوسطه، پژوهش در یادگیری آموزشگاهی و مجازی، 3 (10): 59-64.

کیانی، مسعود؛ اژه‌ای، جواد و یزدخواستی، علی (1394). تعیین نقش تجارب تحصیلی، جنسیت و وضعیت سکونت بر سلامت روان دانشجویان علوم انسانی. مجله پژوهش‌های علوم شناختی و رفتاری، 5 (2): 56-41.

 

 

 

Baeten, M., Kyndt, E., Struyven, K. & Doch, F. (2010). Using student-centered learning environments to stimulate deep approaches to learning: Factors encouraging or discouraging their effectiveness. Educational Research Review, 5:243–260.

Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university (2nd Ed.). Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Biggs, J. B. (1987). The Study Process Questionnaire (SPQ): Manual. Hawthorn, Vic: Australian Council for Educational Research.

Biggs, J. B. (2001). Enhancing learning: A matter of style or approach? In R. J. Sternberg, & L. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles (pp. 73–102). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Biggs, J. B. (2001). The revised two-factor Study Process Questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 17: 133-149.

Biggs, J., & Moore, P. (1993). The process of learning (3rded.). New York: Prentice Hall.

Biggs, J., Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. P. (2001). The revised two-factor Study Process Questionnaire: R-R-SPQ-2F-2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 133−149.

Braun, E.; Woodley, A.; Richardson, J. T. E. & Leidner, B. (2012). Self-rated competences questionnaires from a design perspective. Educational Research Review, 7, 1–18.

Chan, K. & Lai, P. (2007). Revisiting the dichotomous achievement goal framework for Hong Kong secondary students: A structural model analysis. The Asia Pacific Education Researcher. 16(1):11-22.

Crystal, D. S.; Chen, C.; Fuligni, A. J.; Stevenson, H. W., Hsu, C. C.; Ko, H. J. & Kimura, S. (1994). Psychological maladjustment and academic achievement: A cross‐cultural study of Japanese, Chinese, and American high school students. Child development, 65(3), 738-753.

Duff, A. (2004). The Revised Approaches to Studying Inventory (RASI) and its use in management education. Active Learning in Higher Education, 5, 56–72.

Dupeyrat, Caroline, & Marine, Claudette. (2005). Implicit theories of intelligence, Goal orientation cognitive engagement, and achievement: A test of Dweck”s model with returning to school adults. Contemporary educational psychology, 30, 43-59.

Entwistle, N. J., & McCune, V. (2004). ASSIST: A reconceptualization of the approaches to studying inventory. In C. Rust (Ed.), Improving student learning: Improving students as learners. Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development.

Entwistle, N. J., & Tait, H. (1994).The revised approaches to studying inventory. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh, Centre for Research into Learning and Instruction.

Entwistle, N. J., Tait, H. & McCune, V. (2012). Patterns of response to an approach to study inventory across contrasting groups and context. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 15(1):33-48.

Huddleston, P., & Unwin, L. (2002). Teaching and Learning in Further Education, 2nd edition. NY: Roatlege Falmer.

Hurrelmann, K.; Engel, U.; & Weidman, J. C. (1992). Impacts of school pressure, conflict with parents, and career uncertainty on adolescent stress in the Federal Republic of Germany. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 4(1), 33-50.

Kember, C., Leunge, D. Y. P., & Kwan, K. P. (2002). Does the use of student feedback questionnaires improve the overall quality of teaching? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(5), 411-425.

Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J. A., Bridges, B. K., & Hayek, J. C. (2006). Commissioned report for the national symposium on postsecondary student success: Spearheading a dialog on student success.

Kuh, G. D.; Kinzie, J. L.; Buckley, J. A.; Bridges, B. K.; & Hayek, J. C. (2006). What matters to student success: A review of the literature (Vol. 8). Washington, DC: National Postsecondary Education Cooperative.

Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: A framework for the effective use of educational technology. London: Rutledge.

Lawless, C., & Richardson, J. T. E. (2004). Monitoring the experiences of graduates in distance education. Studies in Higher Education, 29, 353–374.

Lea, S., Stephenson, D., & Troy, J. (2003). Higher education students’ attitudes to student-centered learning: Beyond ‘educational bulimia’? Studies in Higher Education, 28(3), 321–334.

Lonka, K., Olkinuora, E., & Mäkinen, J. (2004). Aspects and prospects of measuring studying and learning in higher education. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 301–323.

Marton, F. (1976). On non-verbatim learning. II. The erosion of a task induced learning algorithm. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 17, 41–48.

Masi, G., Sbrana, B., Poli, P., Tomaiuolo, F., Favilla, L., & Marcheschi, M. (2000). Depression and school functioning in non-referred adolescents: A pilot study. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 30(3), 161-171

Pace, R., & Stern, G. (1985). An approach to the measurement of psychological characteristics of college environments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 49,269–277.

Prosser, M., Trigwell, K., Hazel, E., & Gallagher, P. (1994). Students' experiences of teaching and learning at the topic level. Research and Development in Higher Education, (16): 305-10.

Prosser. M, &Trigwell, K. (2002). Understanding Learning and Teaching -The Experience in Higher Education. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Ramsden, P. (1991). A performance indicator of teaching quality in higher education: The Course Experience Questionnaire. Studies in Higher Education, 16, 129−150.

Ramsden, P. (2002). Learning to teach in higher education. London: Rutledge.

Richardson, J. T. E. & Price, L. (2003) Approaches to studying and perceptions of academic quality in electronically delivered courses, British Journal of Educational Technology, 34, 45–56.

Richardson, J. T. E. (1995). Mature Students in Higher Education: An investigation of approaches to studying and academic performance. Studies in Higher Education. 20(1):5-17.

Richardson, J. T. E. (2003). Approach to studying and perceptions of academic quality a short web-based course. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34, 433-442.

Richardson, J. T. E. (2005). Students’ perceptions of academic quality and approaches to studying in distance education. British Educational Research Journal. 31(1):7-27.

Richardson, J. T. E. (2009). What can students perceptions of academic quality tell us? Research using the Course Experience Questionnaire. The Routledge International Handbook of Higher Education. Routledge International Handbooks of Education. Routledge, pp. 199–210.

Sadler-Smith, E. (1999). Approaches to studying: Age, gender and academic performance. Educational Studies, 22(3), 367–379.

Säljö, R. (1975). Qualitative differences in learning as a function of the learner’s conception of a task. Gothenburg: Acta Universities Gothoburgensis.

Scouller, K. (1998) The influence of assessment method on students’ learning approaches: multiple choice question examination versus assignment essay, Higher Education, 35, 453–472.

Stevens, J. P. (2009). Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences (5th Ed.). US: Routledge.

Thomas, C. R., Gadbois, A. & Shannon, A. (2007). Academic self-handicapping: The role of self-concept clarity and students' learning strategies. British journal of educational psychology, 77: 101 – 119.

Yong, S.T. & Lew, T.Y. (2005). Deep learning approach among marketing students: Adult versus youth learner. Retrieved from www.herdsa.com.

Zeegers, P. (2002). A revision of the Biggs Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ). Higher Education Research and Development, 21, 73–92.

Zeegers, P. (2004). Student learning in higher education: A path analysis of academic achievement in science. Higher Education Research and Development, 23(1), 35–56.