{"title":"比较两种学习方法清单及其在预测考试成绩和学习习惯方面的实用性。","authors":"Andrew R Thompson","doi":"10.1152/advan.00227.2023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The revised two-factor Study Process Questionnaire and the Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students are two instruments commonly used to measure student learning approach. Although they are designed to measure similar constructs, it is unclear whether the metrics they provide differ in terms of their real-world classification of learning approach. The purpose of this study is to compare outcomes of these two inventories in a study population from an undergraduate (baccalaureate) human anatomy course. The three central goals of this study are to compare the inventories in terms of <i>1</i>) how students are classified, <i>2</i>) the relationship between examination performance, time spent studying, and learning approach, and <i>3</i>) instrument reliability. Results demonstrate that student classifications of corresponding scales of each inventory are significantly correlated, suggesting they measure similar constructs. Although the inventories had similar reliability, neither was consistently strong in predicting examination performance or study habits. Overall, these results suggest that the two inventories are comparable in terms of how they measure learning approach, but the lack of correspondence between learning approach scores and measurement outcomes questions their validity as tools that can be used universally in classrooms.<b>NEW & NOTEWORTHY</b> Although learning approach inventories have been used extensively in education research, there has been no direct comparison of how student classification differs between instruments or how classification influences the interpretation of how learning approach impacts student performance. This is especially relevant in light of recent research questioning the validity of the Study Process Questionnaire (LoGiudice AB, Norman GR, Manzoor S, Monteiro S. <i>Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract</i> 28: 47-63, 2023; Johnson SN, Gallagher ED, Vagnozzi AM. <i>PLoS One</i> 16: e0250600, 2021).</p>","PeriodicalId":50852,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Physiology Education","volume":" ","pages":"164-170"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A comparison of two learning approach inventories and their utility in predicting examination performance and study habits.\",\"authors\":\"Andrew R Thompson\",\"doi\":\"10.1152/advan.00227.2023\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The revised two-factor Study Process Questionnaire and the Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students are two instruments commonly used to measure student learning approach. Although they are designed to measure similar constructs, it is unclear whether the metrics they provide differ in terms of their real-world classification of learning approach. The purpose of this study is to compare outcomes of these two inventories in a study population from an undergraduate (baccalaureate) human anatomy course. The three central goals of this study are to compare the inventories in terms of <i>1</i>) how students are classified, <i>2</i>) the relationship between examination performance, time spent studying, and learning approach, and <i>3</i>) instrument reliability. Results demonstrate that student classifications of corresponding scales of each inventory are significantly correlated, suggesting they measure similar constructs. Although the inventories had similar reliability, neither was consistently strong in predicting examination performance or study habits. Overall, these results suggest that the two inventories are comparable in terms of how they measure learning approach, but the lack of correspondence between learning approach scores and measurement outcomes questions their validity as tools that can be used universally in classrooms.<b>NEW & NOTEWORTHY</b> Although learning approach inventories have been used extensively in education research, there has been no direct comparison of how student classification differs between instruments or how classification influences the interpretation of how learning approach impacts student performance. This is especially relevant in light of recent research questioning the validity of the Study Process Questionnaire (LoGiudice AB, Norman GR, Manzoor S, Monteiro S. <i>Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract</i> 28: 47-63, 2023; Johnson SN, Gallagher ED, Vagnozzi AM. <i>PLoS One</i> 16: e0250600, 2021).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50852,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Advances in Physiology Education\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"164-170\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Advances in Physiology Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00227.2023\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/25 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Physiology Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00227.2023","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
A comparison of two learning approach inventories and their utility in predicting examination performance and study habits.
The revised two-factor Study Process Questionnaire and the Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students are two instruments commonly used to measure student learning approach. Although they are designed to measure similar constructs, it is unclear whether the metrics they provide differ in terms of their real-world classification of learning approach. The purpose of this study is to compare outcomes of these two inventories in a study population from an undergraduate (baccalaureate) human anatomy course. The three central goals of this study are to compare the inventories in terms of 1) how students are classified, 2) the relationship between examination performance, time spent studying, and learning approach, and 3) instrument reliability. Results demonstrate that student classifications of corresponding scales of each inventory are significantly correlated, suggesting they measure similar constructs. Although the inventories had similar reliability, neither was consistently strong in predicting examination performance or study habits. Overall, these results suggest that the two inventories are comparable in terms of how they measure learning approach, but the lack of correspondence between learning approach scores and measurement outcomes questions their validity as tools that can be used universally in classrooms.NEW & NOTEWORTHY Although learning approach inventories have been used extensively in education research, there has been no direct comparison of how student classification differs between instruments or how classification influences the interpretation of how learning approach impacts student performance. This is especially relevant in light of recent research questioning the validity of the Study Process Questionnaire (LoGiudice AB, Norman GR, Manzoor S, Monteiro S. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 28: 47-63, 2023; Johnson SN, Gallagher ED, Vagnozzi AM. PLoS One 16: e0250600, 2021).
期刊介绍:
Advances in Physiology Education promotes and disseminates educational scholarship in order to enhance teaching and learning of physiology, neuroscience and pathophysiology. The journal publishes peer-reviewed descriptions of innovations that improve teaching in the classroom and laboratory, essays on education, and review articles based on our current understanding of physiological mechanisms. Submissions that evaluate new technologies for teaching and research, and educational pedagogy, are especially welcome. The audience for the journal includes educators at all levels: K–12, undergraduate, graduate, and professional programs.