The Relationship between Student Success in Introductory University Chemistry and Approaches to Learning outside of the Classroom.
The Relationship between Student Success in Introductory University Chemistry and Approaches to Learning outside of the Classroom.
复制标题
学生在大学化学入门课程中的成功与课堂外学习方法之间的关系。
DOI：
10.1002/tea.21215
复制
发表时间：
2015
影响因子：
4.6
通讯作者：
A. Stacy
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Michelle L. Sinapuelas;A. Stacy
这里报告的研究调查了一所公立大学化学入门课程的学生所采用的学习方法。为了评估学习方法，一组61名参加课程的学生在学期的三个时间点接受了采访，专门了解他们如何准备考试。从这些访谈中，开发了化学学习方法框架。该框架描述了四个层次的学习方法，这些方法是根据学生报告的关于使用元认知技能、参考材料、练习问题和与他人互动的活动来确定的。使用第1级（收集事实）和第2级（学习过程）方法的学生依靠外部信息来源来理解，而使用第3级（确认理解）和第4级（应用想法）方法的学生自己评估信息并用自己的话来解释。层次线性模型分析显示，学生的学习方法水平对考试成绩有显著的预测作用（p < 0.05）。从2级到3级，每个学习方法等级的系数都随着等级的增加而增加（π2 = 0.39, π3 = 0.88），表明随着学习方法等级的提高，考试成绩也随之提高。本研究证明了学生学习方法与学习成绩之间的关系。分析还表明，虽然一些学生在学期中确实从二级学习方法过渡到三级学习方法，但许多学生仍然停留在二级学习方法，并且很大程度上依赖于程序和问题的记忆。这些发现表明，应该开发额外的教学支持，以鼓励更多的学生在自主学习和备考时使用三级学习方法。©2015 Wiley期刊公司中国科学教育学报（英文版）52(2):790-815,2015。
The study reported here examines the learning approaches adopted by students enrolled in introductory chemistry at a public university. To evaluate learning approaches, a group of 61 students enrolled in the course were interviewed at three time-points during the semester, specifically to ascertain how they prepared for the exams. From these interviews, the Learning Approaches Framework for Chemistry was developed. The framework describes four levels of learning approaches that were determined based on the activities reported by students around use of metacognitive skills, reference materials, practice problems, and interactions with others. Students who use approaches referred to as Level 1 (Gathering Facts) and Level 2 (Learning Procedures) rely on outside sources of information for understanding, while those who use Level 3 (Confirming Understanding) and Level 4 (Applying Ideas) approaches evaluate information for themselves and generate explanations in their own words. Analysis using a Hierarchical Linear Model showed that students’ learning approach level is a significant predictor of their exam score (p < 0.05). The coefficient for each learning approach level increases as the level increases from Level 2 to Level 3 (π2 = 0.39, π3 = 0.88) indicating that as the learning approach level increases, so does exam performance. This study demonstrates associations between students’ learning approaches and performance. Analysis also showed that while some students do make the transition from Level 2 to Level 3 learning approaches during the semester, many students remain in Level 2, and rely largely on memorization of procedures and problems. These findings suggest that additional instructional supports should be developed to encourage more students to use Level 3 learning approaches when studying and preparing for exams in self-directed settings. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 52: 790–815, 2015.