Do personality traits matter? A comparative study of student preferences for TLAs and assessment modes in two different majors

IF 1.7 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Teaching & Learning Inquiry-The ISSOTL Journal Pub Date : 2019-03-29 DOI:10.20343/TEACHLEARNINQU.7.1.6
Annika Fjelkner, A. Håkansson, Pia Rosander
{"title":"Do personality traits matter? A comparative study of student preferences for TLAs and assessment modes in two different majors","authors":"Annika Fjelkner, A. Håkansson, Pia Rosander","doi":"10.20343/TEACHLEARNINQU.7.1.6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"What, then, do we need to know about our students to better provide for more equitable outcomes? Who will succeed depend on many factors, and student personality traits is one factor less discussed in the engagement and First year experience literature. The aim of this study is to add to the teaching in higher education discussion by exploring how student differ regarding personality traits profile (IPIP-NEO-PI test; Goldberg, 1999), approaches to learning (R-SPQ-2F test; Biggs, Kember & Leung, 2001), and preference for teaching and learning activites and assessment modes. The on-line survey study was carried out in a small, teaching intensive Swedish university on students in a Business (n=144) and Pre-school teacher education program (n=179). Findings were that there seem to be systematic differences between the types of modes preferred, and also significant differences between the two majors regarding learning approach, motive and strategy. Findings are discussed in relation to Jarvis’ (2010) model of learning and disjuncture, Biesta’s (2005) discussion on educational relationships and risk, and Trowler’s (2008) concept of teaching and learning regimes (TLRs). There are two clear risks that teachers and curriculum developers face. First, teachers who are new or come from a different TLR may face the risk of alienating students and exposing them to extreme anxiety if using TLAs and assessment modes students are uncomfortable with and unused to. Second, teachers and curriculum developers run the risk of not challenging students enough, thus depriving them of valuable learning experiences.","PeriodicalId":44633,"journal":{"name":"Teaching & Learning Inquiry-The ISSOTL Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2019-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Teaching & Learning Inquiry-The ISSOTL Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20343/TEACHLEARNINQU.7.1.6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

What, then, do we need to know about our students to better provide for more equitable outcomes? Who will succeed depend on many factors, and student personality traits is one factor less discussed in the engagement and First year experience literature. The aim of this study is to add to the teaching in higher education discussion by exploring how student differ regarding personality traits profile (IPIP-NEO-PI test; Goldberg, 1999), approaches to learning (R-SPQ-2F test; Biggs, Kember & Leung, 2001), and preference for teaching and learning activites and assessment modes. The on-line survey study was carried out in a small, teaching intensive Swedish university on students in a Business (n=144) and Pre-school teacher education program (n=179). Findings were that there seem to be systematic differences between the types of modes preferred, and also significant differences between the two majors regarding learning approach, motive and strategy. Findings are discussed in relation to Jarvis’ (2010) model of learning and disjuncture, Biesta’s (2005) discussion on educational relationships and risk, and Trowler’s (2008) concept of teaching and learning regimes (TLRs). There are two clear risks that teachers and curriculum developers face. First, teachers who are new or come from a different TLR may face the risk of alienating students and exposing them to extreme anxiety if using TLAs and assessment modes students are uncomfortable with and unused to. Second, teachers and curriculum developers run the risk of not challenging students enough, thus depriving them of valuable learning experiences.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
个性特征重要吗?两个不同专业学生TLA偏好及评估模式的比较研究
那么,为了更好地提供更公平的结果,我们需要了解我们的学生什么?谁会成功取决于许多因素,而学生的性格特征是参与和一年级经验文献中较少讨论的一个因素。本研究的目的是通过探索学生在个性特征特征(IPIP-NEO-PI测试;Goldberg,1999)、学习方法(R-SPQ-2F测试;Biggs,Kember&Leung,2001)以及对教学活动和评估模式的偏好方面的差异,为高等教育教学讨论增添内容。这项在线调查研究是在瑞典一所教学密集的小型大学进行的,对象是商学院(n=144)和学前教师教育项目(n=179)的学生。研究结果表明,两个专业在学习方式、动机和策略方面存在系统性差异。研究结果与Jarvis(2010)的学习和脱节模型、Biesta(2005)关于教育关系和风险的讨论以及Trowler(2008)的教学制度(TLR)概念有关。教师和课程开发人员面临两个明显的风险。首先,如果使用学生不舒服和不习惯的TLA和评估模式,新教师或来自不同TLR的教师可能会面临疏远学生的风险,并使他们陷入极度焦虑。其次,教师和课程开发人员可能会面临对学生挑战不足的风险,从而剥夺他们宝贵的学习经验。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Teaching & Learning Inquiry-The ISSOTL Journal
Teaching & Learning Inquiry-The ISSOTL Journal EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
30.00%
发文量
37
审稿时长
17 weeks
期刊最新文献
Navigating between Scylla and Charybdis: SoTL as its Own Kind of Inquiry Experiences with Supporting Teachers with Scholarship of Teaching and Learning at a Research-Intensive University: Lessons Learned Defining Active Learning: A Restricted Systemic Review Using Scenarios to Explore the Complexity of Student-Faculty Partnership Challenges of Shaping Student Study Strategies for Success: Replication and Extension
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1