Learning styles: self-reports versus thinking-aloud measures.

Learning styles: self-reports versus thinking-aloud measures.
复制标题

学习方式：自我报告与出声思考措施。

DOI：
10.1348/000709903322275885
复制
发表时间：
2003
期刊：
The British journal of educational psychology
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
J. Verheij
J. Verheij
中科院分区：
--
文献类型：
--
作者：
M. Veenman;F. Prins;J. Verheij

文献摘要

被引文献

相似文献

背景 学习风格通常是通过学生在Vermunt的学习风格清单（ILS）等工具上的自我报告来评估的。然而，最近的研究对问卷调查在学习风格评估中的适用性提出了质疑。 旨在 本文的目的是评估学习风格评估的方法，作为一种手段，确定学生的风险。因此，本研究将把语言学习策略作为一种自我报告工具，与学生的实际学习过程进行比较，并通过有声思维的方法进行评估。 样品 在第一项研究中，来自德尔夫特技术大学的1，060名学生参与了研究。其中33人在ILS上被选中参加第二项研究。 方法 对1，060名参与者进行了ILS，并收集了他们的研究结果（GPA和学分）。接下来，选定的33名参与者一边大声思考一边学习技术文本。知识的获取是通过后测来衡量的。大声思考协议的研究活动的频率进行了分析，从而代表学习风格的过程措施。 结果 在研究1中，ILS被证明是一个相当弱的预测研究结果。研究2的结果表明，ILS和研究过程的措施之间几乎没有任何对应关系，虽然这两种措施的主成分结构高度相似。此外，学习过程的措施超过了ILS的学习结果的预测（后测试，GPA和信用点）。 结论 学习风格理论得到了学习过程测量结果的证实。然而，应该重新考虑通过自我报告工具（如ILS）评估学习风格。
BACKGROUND Learning styles are often assessed through students' self-reports on instruments such as Vermunt's Inventory of Learning Styles (ILS). Recent research, however, has questioned the adequacy of questionnaires for the assessment of learning styles. AIMS The objective of this paper is to evaluate methods of learning style assessment as a means for identifying students at risk. Therefore, the ILS as a self-report instrument will be compared with the students' actual study processes, assessed through the thinking-aloud method. SAMPLE In the first study 1,060 students from the Technical University of Delft participated. Thirty-three of them were selected on the ILS for participation in the second study. METHOD The ILS was administered to the 1,060 participants and their study results (GPA and credit points) were collected. Next, the selected 33 participants studied a technical text while thinking aloud. Knowledge acquisition was measured by means of a post-test. Thinking-aloud protocols were analysed on frequencies of study activities, thus representing process measures of learning styles. RESULTS The ILS proved to be a rather weak predictor of study results in Study 1. Results from Study 2 show hardly any correspondence between ILS and study process measures, although principal component structures of both measures were highly similar. Furthermore, study process measures outweighed the ILS in the prediction of study results (post-test, GPA and credit points). CONCLUSIONS Learning style theory was confirmed by results on the study process measures. The assessment of learning styles through self-report instruments such as the ILS, however, should be reconsidered.