Evaluation of Learning Approaches for Prospective Physics

Abstract

The purpose of this research is to determine prospective physics teachers\' learning approaches and to investigate the relationships among this variable, students\' gender, class level and academic success. Total number of 141 students, Physics Education Department, Education Faculty of Buca, Dokuz Eylul University, is participated to this research. Data of the research were collected by Learning Approaches Scale (α=0,.81). The analysis of the data clearly indicates that prospective physics teachers prefer deeper approach in respect to the surface approach, also no significant difference observed in terms of gender and as the class level goes up students\' preference to use the deeper approach becomes even stronger.

Keywords

• Prospective physics teachers, Learning approaches, Academic achievement

Fizik Öğretmen Adaylarının Öğrenme Yaklaşımlarının

Abstract

Bu araştırmanın amacı fizik öğretmen adaylarının öğrenme yaklaşımlarını belirlemek, bu değişkenin öğrencilerin cinsiyeti, sınıf düzeyi, akademik başarıları ile ilişkilerini ortaya koymaktır. Araştırmaya Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Fizik Eğitimi Anabilim Dalı\'nda öğrenim görmekte olan 141 öğrenci katılmıştır. Araştırmanın verileri Öğrenme Yaklaşımları Ölçeği (α=0,81) ile toplanmıştır. Araştırmanın sonucunda, fizik öğretmen adaylarının derinsel yaklaşımı, yüzeysel yaklaşıma göre daha fazla tercih ettikleri, öğrenme yaklaşımlarının cinsiyetlerine göre değişmediği, sınıf düzeyleri yükseldikçe yüzeysel öğrenme yaklaşımını daha az, derinsel yaklaşımı ise daha fazla benimsedikleri saptanmıştır.

Keywords

• Fizik öğretmen adayları, Öğrenme yaklaşımları, Akademik başarı

References

1. Albaili, M.A. (1995). An Arabic Version of The Study Process Questionnaire: Reliability And Validity. Psychological Reports, 77, 1083–1089.
2. Austin, L. B. & Shore, B. M. (1995). Using Concept Mapping For Assessment in Physics. Physics Education, 30, 1, 41–45.
3. Beattie, V., Collins, B. & Mcinnes, B. (1997). Deep And Surface Learning: A Simple or Simplistic Dichotomy?. Accounting Education, 6, 1, 1–12.
4. Berberoğlu, G. & Hei, L. M. (2003). A Comparison of University Students' Approaches To Learning Across Taiwan And Turkey. International Journal of Testing, 3, 2, 173–187.
5. Bernardo, A.B. (2003). Approaches To Learning And Academic Achievement Of Filipino Students. J Genet Psychol. 164, 1, 101-14.
6. Biggs, J.B. (1987). Student Approaches To Learning And Studying. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.
7. Biggs, J., Kember, D.& Leung, D. Y. P. (2001). The Revised Two-Factor Study Process Questionnaire: R-SPQ- 2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71,1, p133.
8. Bruce, L. B. (2001). Student Self-Assessment: Encouraging Active Engagement in Learning, Fielding Graduate Institue, unpublished PhD thesis.

9. Byrne, M., Flood, B., Willis, P. (1999). Approaches To Learning of Irish Students Studying Accounting. DCUBS Research Papers 1997–1998, No.36.
10. Byrne, M., Flood, B. & Willis, P. (2001). The Relationship Between Learning Approaches And Learning Outcomes: A Study of Irish Accounting Students. Accounting Education, 11, 1, 27–42.
11. Cohen. J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for thebehavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
12. Cope, C. & Staehr, L. (2005). Improving Students' Learning Approaches Through İntervention in An Information Systems Learning Environment. Studies in Higher Education, 30, 2, p181–197.
13. Dart, B.C., Burnett, P.C. & Purdie, N.M. (2000). Students’ Conceptions of Learning, The Classroom Environment, And Approaches To Learning. The Journal of Educational Research, 93, 4, 262–270.
14. Dickie, L. O. (2003). Approach to Learning, the Cognitive Demands of Assessment, and Achievement in Physics. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 33, 1, 87-111.
15. Duff, A. (2003). Quality Of Learning On An MBA Programme: The Impact of Approaches To Learning On Academic Performance. Educational Psychology, 23, 123–139.
16. Ellez, M. ve Sezgin, G. (2002). Öğretmen Adaylarının Öğrenme Yaklaşımları. V. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresi Bildiri Kitapçığı Cilt II, s: 1261–1266.
17. Entwistle, N., Hanley, M., and Hounsell, D. (1979). Identifying Distinctive Approaches To Studying. Higher Education, 8, 365–380.
18. Guimberteau, B. (1992). Extracting meaning from physics texts: standards of evaluation used by novices, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (San Francisco, CA, April 20–24). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. ED346109).
19. Harper, K. A., Etkina, E. & Lin, Y. (2003). Encouraging And Analyzing Student Questions in A Large Physics Course: Meaningful Patterns For Instructors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 8, 776–791.
20. Kember, D. (1996). An Examination of The İnterrelationships Between Workload, Study Time, Learning Approaches And Academic Outcomes. Studies in Higher Education, 21, 3, 347-358.
21. Kember, D., Biggs, J. & Leung, D.Y.P. (2004). Examining The Multidimensionality of Approaches To Learning Through The Development of A Revised Version of The Learning Process Questionnaire. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 261–280.
22. Kember, D. and Gow, L. (1990). Cultural Specificity of Approaches To Study. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 60, 356–363.
23. Kotrlik, J.W. & Williams, H. A. (2003). The Incorporation of Effect Size in Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Research. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, 21, 1, 1-7.
24. Johnston, J. C. (1994). The role of metacognition in enhancing strategy transfer (Monitoring and Control Instruction). Unpublished PhD Thesis. University of Washington.
25. Koch, A. (2001). Training in Metacognition And Comprehension of Physics Texts. Science Education, 85, 758–768.
26. Koch, A. & Eckstein, S. G. (1991). Improvement of Reading Comprehension of Physics Texts By Students’ Question Formulation. International Journal of Science Education, 13, 4, 473–486.
27. Marton, F. & Saljo, R. (1976). On Qualitative Differences in Learning: I - Outcome And Process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4–11.
28. Mayya, S.S., Rao, A.K. & Ramnarayan, K. (2004). Learning Approaches, Learning Difficulties And Academic Performance of Undergraduate Students of Physiotherapy. The Internet Journal of Allied Health Sciences and Practice, 2, 4.
29. Miller, C. D., Finley, J. & McKinley, D. L. (1990). Learning Approaches And Motives: Male And Female Differences And İmplications For Learning Assistance Programs. Journal of College Student Development, 31, 2 147–154.
30. Mpofu, E.& Oakland, T.(2001). Predicting School Achievement in Zimbabwean Multiracial Schools Using Biggs’ Learning Process Questionnaire. South African Journal of Psychology, 31, 3, 20–29.
31. Nguyen, T.N. (1998). Students’ Approaches To Learning Physics in A Vietnamese University. MS Thesis, Simon Fraser University, Canada.
32. Prosser, M & Millar, R. (1989). The How And What of Learning Physics. European Journal of Psycholgy in Education, 4, 513–528.
33. Prosser, M., Walker, P. & Millar, R. (1996). Differences in Students’ Perceptions of Learning. Physics Education, 31, 43–48.
34. Ramsden, P. (1979). Student learning and perceptions of the academic environment. Higher Education, 8, 411-427
35. Richardson, J.T.E. (1994). Using questionnaires to evaluate student learning: some health warnings. (2002, Mayıs 25).
36. Richardson, J. T. E. & King, E. (1991). Gender Differences in The Experience of Higher Education: Quantitative And Qualitative Approaches. Educational Psychology, 11, 363–382.
37. Rouet, J. F., Vidal-Abarca, E., Erboul, A. B. & Millogo, V. (2001). Effects of Information Search Tasks On The Comprehension of Instructional Text. Discourse Processes, 31, 2, 163–186.
38. Schmeck, R.R., Ribich, F.D. & Ramaniah, H. (1977) Development of A Self-Report Inventory For Assessing Individual Differences in Learning Processes. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1: 413–31.
39. Severiens, S. & ten Dam, G. (1997). Gender And Gender Identity Differences in Learning Styles. Educational Psychology, 17, 79–93.
40. Stiernborg, M. & Bandaranayeke, R.C. (1996). Medical Students’ Approaches To Studying. Medical Teacher, 18, 3, 229–236.
41. Smith, P. J. & Smith, S. N. (1999). Differences between Chinese and Australian students: some implications for distance educators. Distance Education, 20, 1, 64.
42. Watkins, D. (1996). The İnfluence of Social Desirability On Learning Process Questionnaires: A Neglected Possibility?. Educational Psychology, 52, 260– 263.
43. Watkins, D. & Mboya, M. (1997). Assessing The Learning Processes of Black South African Students. Journal of Psychology, 131, 623–640.
44. Wierstra, R.F.A., Kanselaar, G., van der Linden, J. L., Lodewijks, H. G.L.C., Vermunt, J.D. (2003). The Impact of The University Context on European Students' Learning Approaches And Learning Environment Preferences. Higher Education, 45, 4, 523.
45. Wilson, A. (1987) Approaches To Learning Among Third World Tertiary Science Students: Papua, New Guinea. Research in Science and Technological Education, 5, 59–67.
46. Wong, N. & Lin, W. (1996). Cross-Cultural Validation of Models of Approaches To Learning: An Application of Confirmatory... . Educational Psychology, 16, 3, 317–328.
47. Vertenten, K. (2002). Learning To Learn Physics: The Implementation of Process- Oriented Instruction in The First Year of Higher Education. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Universitaire Instelling Antwerpen.
48. Zhang, L. (2000). University Students’ Learning Approaches in Three Cultures: An Investigation of Bigg’s 3P Model. The Journal of Psychology, 134, 1, 37–55.
49. Zieneddine, A. & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2001). Doing The Right Thing Versus Doing The Right Thing Right: Concept Mapping in A Freshmen Physics Laboratory. European Journal of Physics, 22, 501–511.