Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
OWD2010 - 2 - Studentkenmerken en ICT-ondersteunend leren: leerstijlen, doelorientaties en academische motivaties - Dirk Tempelaar
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.


Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

OWD2010 - 2 - Studentkenmerken en ICT-ondersteunend leren: leerstijlen, doelorientaties en academische motivaties - Dirk Tempelaar


Published on

Published in: Education

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide


  • 1. Studentkenmerken en ICT-ondersteund leren: leerstijlen, doeloriëntaties en academische motivaties
    Dirk Tempelaar
  • 2. Keuzeprocessen in ‘blended leren’: de student aan zet
    Veel internationaal onderzoek naar het ‘scaffolden van e-leren’: soms zijn digitale leertools dermate complex, dat het leren erin (voor sommige studenten) ondersteund moet worden door persoonlijke tutors. Onderzoeksvraag: voor wie?
    Maar het omgekeerde kan ook gelden: face-to-face leerprocessen zijn complex (student-gericht leren), digitaal leren kan daar een ondersteuning voor zijn.
    Meest brede vraag: als de student kan kiezen in vormen van leren, zoals digitaal vsface-to-face, welke studenten maken welke keuzes?
  • 3. Maastricht’s blended learning
    Problem-based learning (adapted from McMaster University): collaborative learning based on social constructivist principles (with support of lecture cycles)
    Adaptive tutorial ALEKS: individual learning, with e-learning environment based on Knowledge Space theory (AI)
    This blended learning environment is our ‘statistical buffet’ for the students. Prime characteristic is that students continually choose from the buffet: it is not a one-time allocation based on student characteristics at the start of the course, but a repeated choice over a 8 weeks course period.
    Data for this study are 6 relative large (800/1000) cohorts of freshmen business / economics.
  • 4. Process of PBL
    small group discussion
    * description of phenomena
    * prepared by a team of teachers
    * directs learning activities
    * what do we already know
    about the problem?
    * what do we still need to
    know about the problem?
    * using a specific problem
    solving technique (7-jump)
    self study
    exchange of information
    *learning resources
    *integration of knowledge
    from different disciplines
    * did we acquire a better under-
    standing of the processes
    involved in the problem?
  • 5. How PBL? Seven-Jump
    Step 1: Read: clarify terms and concepts
    Step 2: Problem definition
    Step 3: Brainstorm
    Step 4: Systematic inventory
    Step 5: Formulate learning goals
    Step 6: Self-study
    Step 7: Report and synthesize
  • 6. Roles
    * Tutor: monitors the process and content
    * Discussion leader: leads the discussion/ process: summarises, activates,
    asks questions
    * Secretary: “memory”of the group, takes minutes
    * Group members: participate and prepare!!!
  • 7. Role of adaptive e-tutorial ALEKS in Statistics education
    ALEKS replaces all ‘practicals’
    It adapts to the level of mastery of students, and thus takes into account prior statistics schooling, and in specific: lack of any prior schooling
    Participation is optional, and most strongly advised for students with no prior schooling Stats, and weak prior schooling Math
    Mastery is assessed in three Quizzes that allow students to achieve ‘bonus scores’ for their final exam. Strong students do not need such bonus, but for weaker students, it can be the difference between passing and failing.
  • 8. UM solution: Adaptive e-tutorial: ALEKS
  • 9. “Ideal” individual learning-path
    Based on outcomes of entry-assessment, a student could be evaluated at any point on the knowledge space of topic X.
    Student A can have a different learning path than Student D to reach point f
    Ideally, the learning materials and teachings methods should adapt to the knowledge/skills of each individual student.
  • 10. ALEKS learning path
    Knowledge State can be described by
    All mastered items
    Outer Fringe (=Ready to learn ) + Inner Fringe (=Most recently learned)
  • 11. Sample of an ALEKS assessment item
  • 12. Partial sample of an ALEKS learning report
  • 13. ALEKS: learning pie
  • 14. ALEKS: Ready to learn & Log
  • 15. ALEKS: Quiz report
  • 16. ALEKS: Question
  • 17. ALEKS: Explanation
  • 18. ALEKS: Question
  • 19. ALEKS: Explanation
  • 20. Student learning characteristics
    Martin’s Student Motivation and Engagement Wheel
  • 21. Martin’s Student Motivation and Engagement Wheel
    Boosters: thoughts and behaviors that enhance motivation & engagement
    Engagement: the behavior that reflects this energy and drive
    Motivation: students’ energy and drive to learn
    Mufflers (dempers): constrained or impeded motivation and
    Guzzlers (verzwelgers): reducedmotivation and
  • 22. SMS correlations
    Booster thoughts:
    SB self belief
    LF learning focus
    VS value school
    Booster behaviors:
    PS persistence
    PL planning
    SM study manag
    UC uncertcontr
    FA Failure avoid
    AN anxiety
    DS disengagem
    SS self sabotage
  • 23. Self-regulated learning: Vermunt’s learning styles (patterns) model
    Learning styles composed of four components:
    Learning Orientations: students’ learning related attitudes and aims: Personally interested, Certificate directed, Self-test directed, Vocation directed, Ambivalent
    Learning Conceptions: beliefs and views on learning: Construction of knowledge, Intake of knowledge, Use of knowledge, Experience Stimulating Education, Cooperative Education
    Cognitive Processing Strategies: Critical processing, Relating & Structuring (together: Deep strategies), Analysing, Memorising & Rehearsing (together: Stepwise strategies), Concrete Processing
    Metacognitive regulation strategies: Self-Regulation of learning process, Self-regulation of learning content (together: Self-regulation), External Regulation of learning process, External regulation of learning content (together: Externalregulation), Lack of Regulation
    Cognitive Processing Strategies and Metacognitive regulation strategies are hypothesised to distinguish deep learners (deep strategies, self-regulation), stepwise learners (stepwise strategies, external regulation) and undirected learners
  • 24. ILS Cognitive Processing Strategies - ‘Cognitieve verwerkingsstrategien’
    Relateren &
    Kritisch verwerken
    Samendiepgaandleren (onderdeelbetekenisgerichteleerstijl)
    Memoriseren &
    Samenstapsgewijsleren (onderdeelreproductiegerichteleerstijl)
  • 25. ILS Metacognitive Regulation Strategies - ‘Metacognitieve regulatie strategien’
    Zelfsturing leerproces &
    Zelfsturing leerinhoud Samenzelfsturing (onderdeelbetekenisgerichteleerstijl)
    Ext. sturing leerproces &
    Ext. sturing leerinhoud Samenexternesturing (onderdeelreproductiegerichteleerstijl)
  • 26. ILS Learning orientations / leerorientaties
    Persoonlijk geïnteresseerd (betekenisgerichte leerstijl)
    Certificaat/diploma gericht( reproductie-gerichteleerstijl)
    Testgericht ( reproductie-gerichteleerstijl)
    Beroepsgericht ( toepassingsgerichteleerstijl)
    Ambivalent ( ongerichteleerstijl)
  • 27. ILS Learning conceptions / leerconcepties
    Constructivistisch, opbouwen kennis (betekenisgerichte leerstijl)
    Opnemen van kennis( reproductie-gerichteleerstijl)
    Gebruik van kennis ( toepassingsgerichteleerstijl)
    Stimulerendonderwijs ( ongerichteleerstijl)
    Cooperatief/ samenwerkend ( ongerichteleerstijl)
  • 28. Instruments:Dweck’s model of self-theories:
    Theories of Intelligence scales:
    Subscale: entity theory
    You have a certain amount of intelligence, and you can’t really do much to change it.
    Your intelligence is something about you that you can’t change very much.
    To be honest, you can’t really change how intelligent you are.
    You can learn new things, but you can’t really change your basic intelligence.
    Subscale: incremental theory
    No matter who you are, you can significantly change your intelligence level.
    You can always substantially change how intelligent you are.
    No matter how much intelligence you have, you can always change it quite a bit.
    You can change even your basic intelligence level considerably.
    Remark: In most empirical work, Dweck and co-authors do not include a separate entity and incremental subscales, but do regard one bipolar scale, called implicit theory, with the incremental position and the entity position as the opposite poles.
  • 29. Dweck’sviews on the role of effort in learning
    Dweck & Blackwell hypothesize that implicit theories determine how students view effort. In the entity-theory framework, (the need for) effort signals low intelligence, thus effort is viewed as a negative thing. In the incremental-theory framework, effort is the cue to learning, to enlarging one’s intelligence, and thus viewed as a positive thing.
    Subscale: Effort as a negative thing, exerting effort means you have a low ability
    When I work hard at my schoolwork, it makes me feel like I’m not very smart.
    It doesn’t matter how hard you work—if you’re not smart, you won’t do well.
    If you’re not good at a subject, working hard won’t make you good at it.
    If a subject is hard for me, it means I probably won’t be able to do really well at it.
    If you’re not doing well at something, it’s better to try something easier.
    Subscale: Effort as a positive thing, exerting effort activates your ability
    When I work hard at my schoolwork, it makes me feel I am learning a lot.
    When something is hard, it just makes me want to work more on it, not less.
    If you don’t work hard and put in a lot of effort, you probably won’t do well.
    The harder you work at something, the better you will be at it.
    If an assignment is hard, it means I’ll probably learn a lot doing it.
  • 30. Dweck: intelligentiezelftheorien en inspanningsopvattingen
    Zeerbeperktecorrelaties. Uitzondering: positieverolvoorinspanning
  • 31. Dweck’s Goal choice: learning goal versus performance goal
    Dweck hypothesizes that (1) implicit theories determine achievement goals, and (2) this relationship relates to relative, not absolute, measures of learning (mastery) and performance goals. So the suggested scale is again bipolar, pitting learning goals against performance goals. However, the scale does not perform well (included in model as dependent, but not as independent construct).
    Alternative tool in Dweck’s work: PALS (revised version), and repeated here: Mastery goal, Performance Approach goal, Performance Avoidance goal
    Grant & Dweck (2003) instrument: 4 Performance goals, 2 Learning goals
    Outcome performance goals: goal of wanting to do well on a particular task
    Ability performance goals: goal of seeking to validate one’s ability
    Both Outcome and Ability goals allow a Normative version (wanting to perform better than others) and a Non-normative version (absolute standard).
    Learning goals with & without explicit challenge-mastery component.
    Total spectrum: Outcome goal, Ability goal, Normative Outcome goal, Normative Ability goal, Learning goal, Challenge-Mastery goal
  • 32. PALS: doelorientaties
    Mastery: omteleren
    Performance Approach: prestatie-motivatie
    Performance Avoidance: Vermijdings-motivatie
  • 33. Dweck’s outcome performance, ability performance & learning goals
    Outcome goal
    Ability goal
    Normative Outcome goal
    Normative Ability goal
    Learning goal
    Challenge-Mastery goal
    Normatief: vergelijkenderwijs
    Niet-normatief: absoluut
  • 34. Metacognition:AILI: Awareness of Independent Learning Inventory
    Developed by researchers of University of Amsterdam: Elshout-Mohr, Meijer, van Daalen-Kapteijns, and Free University of Brussel: Meeus
    Based on Flavells three component model: knowledge, skills, attitudes.
    Balanced design with regard to positively and negatively phrased items.
    K: Metacognitive Knowledge
    K1: in the person category
    K2: about strategies
    K3: about study tasks
    R: Metacognitive Skill:
    R1: orientation on one's own functioning in a learning episode
    R2: monitoring one's execution of a learning episode
    R3: evaluation of one's own functioning in a learning episode
    O: Metacognitive Attitude (sensitivity to feedback):
    O1: sensitivity to metacognitive experiences (internal feedback during learning)
    O2: sensitivity to external feedback on one's cognitive functioning
    O3: curiosity with respect to one's own cognitive functioning and development
  • 35. Metacognitievevaardigheden
    K: kennis van
    R: vaardig in
    O: attitude, sensitiviteit
  • 36. Expectancy-value based model for Achievement Motivations (subject Attitudes)
    The SATS model describes the relationships between achievement motivations toward the subject statistics. It originates from the Expectancy-Value model Eccles, Wigfield and co-authors, and is adapted to the statistics domain.
    Expectancy for success:
    Competence belief, belief in one’s own ability to perform a task
    Perception of task demand, the perceived (lack of) difficulty of the task demand
    Subjective task Value; one component, containing: Attainment values: importance of doing well on a task, Utility value: usefulness; Costs: spent efforts
    Subjective task Affect: Intrinsic value: enjoyment gained from doing the task
    Effort (planned in ex ante, perceived in ex post version)
  • 37. VakattitudesVerwachting*Waarde model (Exp * Value)
    Affectie: waarde
    Cognitievecompetentie: verwachting
    Value: waarde, extrinsiek
    Difficulty: verwachting
    Interest: waarde, intrinsiek
    Effort: inzet
  • 38. Cluster analytic study
    Two-step cluster procedure on AleksHours and BBclicks
    Cluster 1: top e-ALEKS users, average BB
    Cluster 2: average e-ALEKS & BB
    Cluster 3: low e-ALEKS users, average BB
    Cluster 4: average e-ALEKS & top BB
    Cluster 5: average e-ALEKS & low BB
    Cluster 6: independent learners/drop-outs
  • 39. Clusters compared on learning profiles
    Cluster 1: high on Stepwise, average on Deep, high on External.
    Clusters 3 & 6: low on all.
  • 40. Clusters compared on learning profiles
    Cluster 6 is consistent: average on Affect, high on (no)Difficulty, low on Effort. Mirrored in Cluster 1: low in Affect, low in (no)Difficulty, high in Effort.
  • 41. Context afhankelijkheid
    Conclusie 1: onze ‘digitale student’ vertoont kenmerken die deels tegengesteld zijn aan die van de ‘ideale pgo-student’
    Conclusie 2: behoefte aan scaffolding kan dus verschillende richtingen opgaan: niet enkel de tutor die een complex leertool ondersteunt, maar ook de leertool die een complexe tutorgroep aanvult
    Conclusie 3: Blended leren voorziet op flexibele wijze aan persoonlijke ondersteuningbehoefte.