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。

IF 1.7 4区 教育学 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES Advances in Physiology Education Pub Date : 2024-06-01 Epub Date: 2024-01-25 DOI:10.1152/advan.00227.2023
Andrew R Thompson
{"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":null,"pages":null},"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\":null,\"pages\":null},\"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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

修订后的双因素学习过程问卷和学生学习方法与学习技能量表是两种常用于测量学生学习方法的工具。虽然二者的设计都是为了测量类似的建构,但它们提供的度量标准在学习方法的现实世界分类方面是否存在差异,目前尚不清楚。本研究的目的是使用本科(学士学位)人体解剖学课程的研究人群来比较这两个问卷的结果。本研究的三个核心目标是从以下几个方面对这两个量表进行比较:1)如何对学生进行分类;2)考试成绩、学习时间和学习方法之间的关系;3)工具的可靠性。结果表明,每份量表中相应量表的学生分类都有明显的相关性,这表明它们测量的是相似的建构。虽然两份量表的信度相似,但在预测考试成绩或学习习惯方面,两份量表的信度都不高。总体而言,这些结果表明,这两份问卷在测量学习方法方面具有可比性,但学习方法得分与测量结果之间缺乏对应关系,这对它们作为可在课堂上普遍使用的工具的有效性提出了质疑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
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).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
19.00%
发文量
100
审稿时长
>12 weeks
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.
期刊最新文献
Critical Analysis of Information Provided by ChatGPT on Lactate, Exercise, Fatigue, and Muscle Pain: Current Insights and Future Prospects for Enhancement A Primer: Peer Review Process for Advances in Physiology Education. A Workshop to Enrich Physiological Understanding Through Hands-On Learning About Mitochondria-Endoplasmic Reticulum Contact Sites. Hans Berger (1873-1941): the German psychiatrist who recorded the first electrical brain signal in humans 100 years ago. Ultrasound technology as a tool to teach basic concepts of physiology and anatomy in undergraduate and graduate courses: a systematic review.
×
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