Ketonen et al. EFYE2013

  • 448 views
Uploaded on

Our presentation in EFYE2013 Conference, Helsinki, Finland, May 13, 2013

Our presentation in EFYE2013 Conference, Helsinki, Finland, May 13, 2013

More in: Education
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
448
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • Multiple/singe scale measuresfrom 1-5/1-6/1-7 scale (I totally disagree – I totally agree/not at all – very much)”How much do you feel __________ right now?”
  • High/avarage/low scores on…reported high levels of…reported strong evaluations of…perceived the course least/most…scored at an avarage level on…
  • Grades were given on the European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System scale of 1 (no understanding) to 5 (deep understanding)

Transcript

  • 1. www.helsinki.fi/yliopistoImportance of engagementduring first-year studiesPh.D. candidate Elina Ketonen (elina.e.ketonen@helsinki.fi),Anne Haarala-Muhonen, Laura Hirsto, Jari Hänninen, Kirsti Keltikangas, Kristiina Wähälä &Professor (PI) Kirsti LonkaFaculty of Behavioural SciencesUniversity of Helsinki, Finlandkirsti.lonka@helsinki.fiTwitter @kirstilonka #EFYE201315.5.2013Faculty of Behavioural Sciences / Ketonen et al. /EFYE Conference, May 14, 2013, Helsinki, Finland 1
  • 2. www.helsinki.fi/yliopistowww.helsinki.fi/yliopistoFaculty of Behavioural Sciences / Ketonen et al. / EFYE Conference, May 14,2013, Helsinki, Finland 2
  • 3. www.indoorenvironment.orgCreating new solutions for designingschools and universities in FinlandProf Kirsti Lonka et al. 2011-2015WP4 Task 1.1 LearningEnvironments
  • 4. www.helsinki.fi/yliopisto• There is a long history of research on studentlearning in higher education• Previous research has applied a number offrameworks when examining studying in university:‒ Student approaches to learning (SAL)e.g. Biggs 1987; Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983; Lonka &Lindblom-Ylänne, 1996; Marton & Säljö, 1976‒ Self-regulated learning (SRL)e.g. Boekaerts, 1997; Pintrich, 2000; Vermunt, 1998‒ Motivation (Cognitive and attributional startegies, SAQ)e.g. Cantor, 1990; Eronen, Nurmi, & Salmela-Aro, 1998;Jones & Berglas 1978; Martin, Marsh, & Debus, 2001;Norem, 1989; Nurmi, Aunola, Salmela-Aro, & Lindroos, 200315.5.2013 4Faculty of Behavioural Sciences / Ketonen et al. /EFYE Conference, May 14, 2013, Helsinki, FinlandIntroduction
  • 5. www.helsinki.fi/yliopistoDynamic Interplay between Studentsand their Learning EnvironmentTHE LEARNERENVIRONMENTChallengeSTUDYINGPERCEPTION FRICTIONSInstructionOrientationCompetenceGoalsMotivationModified on the basis ofLindblom-Ylänne & Lonka, 2000
  • 6. 15.5.2013 6Faculty of Behavioural Sciences / Ketonen et al. /EFYE Conference, May 14, 2013, Helsinki, FinlandTeacher regulation andstudent regulation of learning(Vermunt & Verloop, 1999)Degree ofStudentDegree of Teacher regulation oflearningregulationof learning Strong Shared LooseHigh DestructivefrictionDestr/ConstrfrictionCongruenceIntermediate DestructivefrictionCongruence ConstructivefrictionLow Congruence ConstructivefrictionDestructivefriction
  • 7. www.helsinki.fi/yliopisto 15.5.2013 7Faculty of Behavioural Sciences / Ketonen et al. /EFYE Conference, May 14, 2013, Helsinki, FinlandResults from the pre-studyThree general learning profiles were identified amongteacher students:• Unstressed students (38%)• Committed students (29%)• Dysfunctional students (33%)Committed students invested most time inself-studying.Dysfunctional students had weakest senseof competence.No differences in study success.
  • 8. www.helsinki.fi/yliopistoWe looked at relationships between• problems in studying (e.g. in self-regulation)• motivation (optimism vs. task avoidance)• experienced challenge and competence• study engagement• confidence of one’s career choiceamong first-year students from different domains15.5.2013 8Faculty of Behavioural Sciences / Ketonen et al. /EFYE Conference, May 14, 2013, Helsinki, FinlandAims
  • 9. www.helsinki.fi/yliopisto1) What kinds of groups could be found to classify theparticipants according to exhaustion, lack ofregulation, lack of interest, task avoidance, andoptimism? (same variables as in pre-study)2) Did these groups differ in terms of domain (faculty)3) How did these groups differ in terms of experiencedchallenge and competence, study engagement,career choice, invested self-study time and studysuccess?15.5.2013 9Faculty of Behavioural Sciences / Ketonen et al. /EFYE Conference, May 14, 2013, Helsinki, FinlandResearch questions
  • 10. www.helsinki.fi/yliopistoThe participants were 697 first-year students from• teacher education,• chemistry,• theology,• law and• engineeringfrom the University of Helsinki and Aalto University15.5.2013 10Faculty of Behavioural Sciences / Ketonen et al. /EFYE Conference, May 14, 2013, Helsinki, FinlandParticipants
  • 11. www.helsinki.fi/yliopisto• Pre-test questionnaire measuring problems instudying, optimism, task avoidance, experiencedchallenge and competence, study engagement,career choice etc.• Follow-up questionaire (during the course)measuring academic emotions, invested self-studytime etc.• Study success assessed on basis of courseexaminations• Step-wise cluster analysis and various ANOVA testswere conducted (a person-oriented approach)15.5.2013 11Faculty of Behavioural Sciences / Ketonen et al. /EFYE Conference, May 14, 2013, Helsinki, FinlandMaterials and Procedures
  • 12. www.helsinki.fi/yliopistoVariables15.5.2013 12Faculty of Behavioural Sciences / Ketonen et al. /EFYE Conference, May 14, 2013, Helsinki, FinlandGeneral learningprofiles(cluster analysis)ExhaustionLack of RegulationLack of InterestTask AvoidanceOptimismSAQ & MED NORD-questionnaire(Lonka et al., 2008)ChallengeCompetenceStudy engagementCareer choiceSelf-study timeStudy successBackround variablesDomain (faculty)GenderAgeDependent variables
  • 13. www.helsinki.fi/yliopisto 15.5.2013 13Faculty of Behavioural Sciences / Ketonen et al. /EFYE Conference, May 14, 2013, Helsinki, FinlandCluster analysis123456ExhaustionLack of regulationLack of interestTask avoidanceOptimismGroup 1Group 2Group 3Figure 1. General learning profiles (mean scores) of the groups.
  • 14. www.helsinki.fi/yliopisto 15.5.2013 14Faculty of Behavioural Sciences / Ketonen et al. /EFYE Conference, May 14, 2013, Helsinki, FinlandLearning profilesThree clusters (general learning profiles)were identified:• Optimistic, functional students (44%)• Optimistic students with study problems (33%)• Pessimistic, dysfunctional students (23%)
  • 15. www.helsinki.fi/yliopisto050100150200250Optimistic, functionalOptimistic with problemsPessimistic, dysfunctionalteacher educ.chemistrylawtheologyengineering15.5.2013 15Faculty of Behavioural Sciences / Ketonen et al. /EFYE Conference, May 14, 2013, Helsinki, FinlandDifferences between domains
  • 16. www.helsinki.fi/yliopisto 15.5.2013 16Faculty of Behavioural Sciences / Ketonen et al. /EFYE Conference, May 14, 2013, Helsinki, FinlandDifferences between clustersp = .000p = .000p = .000p = .000Optimistic,functionalOptimistic withproblemsPessimistic,dysfunctionalChallenge (1-7) 4.6 5.2 4.8Competence (1-7) 5.6 4.8 4.2Study engagement (1-6) 4.4 4.1 3.4Career choice (1-5) 4.2 3.9 2.9Table 1. Between-group differences in experienced challenge and competence,study engagement, and confidence of career choice.
  • 17. www.helsinki.fi/yliopistoOptimistic,functionalOptimisticwith problemsPessimistic,dysfunctionalInvested self-study (h) 5.5 5.0 1.5Planned self-study (h) 13.8 13.0 5.6Expected success (0-5) 3.4 3.2 2.6Study success (0-5) 3.5 3.3 2.715.5.2013 17Faculty of Behavioural Sciences / Ketonen et al. /EFYE Conference, May 14, 2013, Helsinki, FinlandDifferences in self-study andstudy successp = .038p = .002p = .007p = .003Table 2. Between-group differences in invested and planned self-study, andexpected and actual study success.
  • 18. www.helsinki.fi/yliopistoDiscussion with the audience15.5.2013 18Faculty of Behavioural Sciences / Ketonen et al. /EFYE Conference, May 14, 2013, Helsinki, Finland
  • 19. www.helsinki.fi/yliopisto• Experienced level of challenge and competence weredifferent  this supports the idea ofconstructive/destructive friction, where different groups ofstudents react in various ways:• Optimistic, functional students  highest sense ofcompetence, study engagement and confidence of careerchoice• Optimistic with problems  expressed highest challenge• Pessimistic, dysfunctional  lowest sense of competence,study engagement and confidence of career choice,invested least time in self-study and got lowest grades15.5.2013 19Faculty of Behavioural Sciences / Ketonen et al. /EFYE Conference, May 14, 2013, Helsinki, FinlandOur preliminary reflections
  • 20. www.helsinki.fi/yliopistoKetonen, E., & Lonka, K. (2012). Do situational academic emotions predict academicoutcomes in a lecture course? Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 69, 1901-1910. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187704281205611XLindblom-Ylänne, S., & Lonka, K. (2000). Dissonant study orchestrations of highachieving university students. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 15(1), 19-32.Lonka, K., & Ketonen, E. (2012). How to make a lecture course an engaging learningexperience? Studies for the Learning Society, 2(2-3), 63-74.http://versita.metapress.com/content/6604263706320662/fulltext.pdfLonka, K., Sharafi, P., Karlgren, K., Masiello I., Nieminen, J., Birgegård, G., &Josephson, A. (2008). MED NORD - A tool for measuring medical students’ well-beingand study orientations. Medical Teacher, 30(1), 72-79.Vermunt, J.D.H.M., & Verloop, N. (1999). Congruence and friction between learningand teaching. Learning and Instruction 9(3), 257-280.15.5.2013 20Faculty of Behavioural Sciences / Ketonen et al. /EFYE Conference, May 14, 2013, Helsinki, FinlandKey references