A View of Students’ Learning Styles, Learning Activities, and Learning Outcomes in Process Diagrams

Year 2021, Volume: 15 Issue: 1, 32 - 61, 27.06.2021

Çise Cesur , Cem Gerçek

https://doi.org/10.17522/balikesirnef.862572

Abstract

Scientific texts generally use visual presentations (graphs, diagrams, photos, tables, etc.) to help learners to learn a subject. Diagrams are the effective learning tools containing long headings, explanatory labels, arrows and coding in colours Process diagrams are used more commonly in course books. This paper aims to determine the learning activities and learning styles students use in learning through process diagrams and to analyse the effects of learning activities and learning styles on learning achievement. 23 prospective teachers were included in the research. Santa Barbara Learning Style Questionnaire, eye tracking technique, think aloud protocol and Remembering and Effect Evaluation Form were applied to the participants for data collection. It was found through analyses that the participants used such learning activities as giving meaning to process arrows and self-questioning more frequently. It was also found that the participants who spent more time in fixation time main achieved more success in learning.

Keywords

learning styles, learning activities, learning outcomes, eye-tracking, think-aloud protocol

Öğrencilerin Süreç Diyagramlarında Öğrenme Stilleri, Öğrenme Faaliyetleri ve Öğrenme Çıktılarına Bir Bakış

Abstract

Bilimsel metinlerde, öğrenenlerin bir konuyu öğrenmelerine yardımcı olmak için genellikle görsel sunumları (grafikler, diyagram, fotoğraflar, tablolar) kullanılır. Süreç diyagramları, uzun bir başlık, açıklayıcı etiketler, oklar ve renk kodlamalarından oluşan, her türden sürecin adım adım görselleştirilmiş biçimidir. Bu araştırmada, katılımcıların süreç diyagramlarında öğrenmeyi gerçekleştirirken kullandıkları öğrenme aktivitelerini ve öğrenme stillerini belirleyerek, öğrenme aktivitelerinin ve öğrenme stillerinin öğrenme başarısı üzerindeki etkisinin incelenmesi hedeflenmiştir. Araştırmaya, 23 katılımcı katılmıştır. Araştırma verilerin toplanması için ilk olarak katılımcılara Santa Barbara Öğrenme Stili Ölçeği’nin uyarlanmış hali uygulanmıştır. Daha sonra katılımcılara süreç diyagramları göz izleme tekniği ile gösterilmiştir. Aynı zamanda öğrenme aktivitelerini yorumlamak için katılımcılara yüksek sesle düşünme protokolü uygulanmıştır. Yapılan frekans analizi ve Mann Whitney U testi sonucunda başarılı öğrenme gerçekleştiren katılımcıların öğrenme aktivitelerinden okları anlamlandırma ve kendine soru sorma aktivitelerini kullandıkları tespit edilmiştir. Ayrıca, ana alana odaklanmak için daha fazla zaman harcayan katılımcıların öğrenmeyi başarılı bir şekilde gerçekleştirdikleri de bulunmuştur.

Keywords

öğrenme stili, öğrenme aktivitesi, öğrenme çıktısı, göz izleme, yüksek sesle düşünme protokolü

References

• Ainsworth, S. & Loizou, A. T. (2003). The effects of self-explaining when learning with text or diagrams. Cognitive Science, 27, 669-681.
• Azevedo, R. & Cromley, J. G. (2004). Does training on self-regulated learning facilitate students’ learning with hypermedia? Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 523-535.
• Batı, U. & Erdem, O. (2016). Ben Bilmem Beynim Bilir [I don’t know, my brain knows]. İstanbul: MediaCat Kitapları.,
• Boekaerts, M. (1997). Self-regulated learning: A new concept embraced by researchers, policy makers, educators, teachers, and students. Learning and Instruction, 7, 161-186.
• Butcher, K. R. (2006). Learning from text with diagrams: Promoting mental model development and inference generation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 182-197.
• Canham, M. & Hegarty, M. (2010). Effects of knowledge and display design on comprehension of complex graphics. Learning and Instruction, 20, 155-166.
• Cook, M., Carter, G. & Wiebe, E. N. (2008). The interpretation of cellular transport graphics by students with low and high prior knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 239-261.
• Cromley, J. G., Snyder-Hogan, L. E. & Luciw-Dubas, U. A. (2010). Cognitiveactivitiesincomplex science text and diagrams. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35, 59-74.
• Hegarty, M. (2005). Multimedia learning about physical systems. R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (s. 447-465). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Heiser, J. & Tversky, B. (2006). Arrows in comprehending and producing mechanical diagram. Cognitive Science, 30, 581-592.
• Just, M. A. & Carpenter, P. A. (1976). Eye fixations and cognitive processes. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 441–480. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(76)90015-3
• Kragten, M., Admiraal, W. & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2013). Diagrammatic literacy in secondary science education. Research in Science Education, 43, 1785-1800.
• Kriz, S. & Hegarty, M. (2007). Top-down and bottom-up influences on learning from animations. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 65, 911-930.
• Larkin, J. H. & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a Diagram is (Sometimes) Worth Ten Thousand Words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65-99.
• Mason, L., Pluchino, P. & Tornatora, M. C. (2013). An eye-tracking study of learning from science text with concreteand abstract illustrations. The Journal of Experimental Education, 81, 356-384.
• Mayer, R. E. & Massa, L. J. (2003). Three facets of visual and verbal learners: Cognitive ability, cognitive styles, and learning prefence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 833-846.
• Mehigan, T. J., Barry, M., Kehoe, A. & Pitt, I. (2011, July). Using eye tracking technology to identify visual and verbal learners. In: Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE international conference on multimedia and expo (ICME). Barcelona, Spain.
• Meijer, J., Veenman, M. V. & Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. (2006). Metacognitive activities in text-studying and problem-solving: Development of a taxonomy. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12, 209-237.
• Plass, J. L., Chun, D. M., Mayer, R. E. & Leutner, D. (1998). Supporting visual and verbal learning preferences in a second-language multimedia learning environment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 9 (81), 25-36.
• Pressley, M. (2000). Development of grounded theories of complex cognitive processing: Exhaustive within- and between-study analyses of think-aloud data. G. Schraw, & J. C. Impara, Issues in the measurement of metacognition (s. 261-296). Lincoln: NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.
• Pressley, M. & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
• Reece, J. B., Urry, L. A., Cain, M. L., Wasserman, S. A., Minorsky, P. V. & Jackson, R. B. (2010). Campbell biology (9 b.). San Francisco: Pearson Education.
• Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372–422.
• Riding, R. J. (1997). On the nature of cognitive style. Educational Psychology, 17, 29-50.
• Schunk, D. H. (2014). Öğrenme Teorileri [Learning Teories]. (Trans. Ed. M. Şahin,) Ankara: Nobel.
• Schwonke, R., Berthold, K. & Renkl, A. (2009). How multiple external representations are used and how they can be made more useful. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 1127-1243.
• She, H. & Chen, Y. (2009). The impact of multimedia effect on science learning: Evidence from eye movements. Computers & Education, 53, 1297-1307.
• Taiz, L. & Zeiger, E. (2002). Plant Physiology (Vol. 3). Sunderland: Sinauer Associates.
• Vermunt, J. D. (1996). Metacognitive, cognitive and affective aspects of learning styles and strategies: A phenomenographic analysis. Higher Education, 31, 25-50.
• Winn, W. (1991). Learning from maps and diagrams. Educational Psychology Review, 3 (3), 211-247.
• Witkin, H. A. (1973, February). The role of cognitive style in academic performance and in teacher-student relations. ETS Research Bulletin Series, 1, i-58.