Presentation(ii)劉思竹v2.1

320 views

Published on

Presentation II PPT

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
320
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
93
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Presentation(ii)劉思竹v2.1

  1. 1. Presenter: Sze-Chu LiuInstructor: Dr. Pi-Ying Teresa Hsu2012/11/26
  2. 2. CitationHsu, L. (2011). The perceptual learningstyles of hospitality students in a virtuallearning environment: The case of Taiwan.Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport &Tourism Education, 10(1), 114-127. 2
  3. 3. Outline Literature Review Research Questions Method Results Conclusions Reflection 3
  4. 4. Literature Review Learning styles are mainly related to the ways in which people perceive, process, organize and present information. (Conner, 2007). 4
  5. 5. Literature Review Contemporary studies specifically classify perceptual learning styles into visual (V), auditory (A) and kinesthetic (K) types. (Clark, 2000; Reid, 1987). Visual (V) Auditory (A) Kinesthetic (K) 5
  6. 6. Literature Review Designing a program that accommodates an EFL learner’s learning style is vital to the success of their ultimate attainment in English. (Hsu, 2004; Kang, 1999). 6
  7. 7. Literature Review Most hospitality students were either “natural-born convergers” or nurtured to become one after receiving training within hospitality program. (Hsu, 1999) Hospitality student were active, sensing, visual and sequential learners in the web-based courses. (Cranage et al., 2006) 7
  8. 8. Research QuestionsFace-to-Face Web-basedInstruction Instruction Hospitality and Tourism Taiwan Learning Style 8
  9. 9. Research Questions What are the perceptual styles of hospitality students in Taiwan in an online EFL course? How should learners be classified based upon their perceptual learning styles in an online EFL course? How do hospitality students with various perceptual learning styles engage in an EFL virtual learning environment? 9
  10. 10. Method  Context  Two-unit general English course  An additional virtual learning environment supported by WebCT 10
  11. 11. Method Participants • 72 first-year college students • 73% female • Pre-intermediate level of English proficiency 11
  12. 12. Method Instruments • Barsch Learning Style Inventory (BLSI) • On-line performance evaluation by number of postings of each participant and lecturer grade (1-10) 12
  13. 13. Method Statistical techniques Statistical techniques  Staticstica 8.0  •Cluster analysis Cluster analysis  •Discriminant analysis Discriminant analysis 13
  14. 14. Barsch Learning Style Inventory (BLSI)  There are 24 items in BLSI. Often Sometimes Seldom1. Can remember more about a subject through listening □ □ □ than reading.2. Follow written directions better than oral directions. □ □ □3. Like to write things down or take notes for a visual □ □ □ review.4. Bear down extremely hard with a pen or pencil when □ □ □ writing. 14
  15. 15. Barsch Learning StyleInventory (BLSI) OFTEN = 5 POINTS SOMETIMES = 3 POINTS SELDOM = 1 POINTPlace the point value on the blank next to its corresponding itemnumber. Next add the points to obtain the preference scores under eachheading. Visual Auditory Kinesthetic No. pts No. pts No. pts 2 5 1 3 4 1 3 5 5 1 6 5 7 3 8 3 9 5 10 5 11 3 12 1 14 5 13 3 15 1 16 5 18 1 17 3 20 1 21 3 19 3 22 5 24 3 23 3 Var 1 34 Var 2 20 Var 3 22 15
  16. 16. Results Figure 1: Plot of mean for six clusters 16
  17. 17. Results Table 1: Cluster means of three perceptual learning styles for the six clusters of participants Cluster means Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster 1 2 3 4 5 6 VAK V VK A AK VAVar1 28.35 37.00 24.29 30.43 32.12 24.27 (V)Var2 29.76 34.00 18.57 35.14 23.18 24.53 (A)Var3 27.53 31.00 24.29 21.43 23.53 18.40 (K) 17
  18. 18. ResultsTable 2: ANOVA of three variables Analysis of Variances Variable Between SS df Within SS df F Sig.Var1 (V) 811.17 5 611.44 66 17.51 .00Var2 (A) 1990.59 5 478.69 66 54.89 .00Var3 (K) 839.52 5 586.93 66 18.88 .00 18
  19. 19. Results Table 3: Classification matrix of six clusters Rows = observed classification; column = predicted classification Cluster Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4 Cluster 5 % 6 VAK V VK A AK correct VACluster 1 17 0 0 0 0 0 100 VAKCluster 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 50 VCluster 3 0 0 6 0 1 0 85.71 VKCluster 4 1 0 0 13 0 0 92.86 ACluster 5 0 0 0 0 17 0 100 AKCluster 6 0 0 0 0 0 15 100 VA Total 19 1 6 13 18 15 19
  20. 20. ResultsTable 4: The summary of discriminant function analysis 20
  21. 21. Table 5: Performance of learners inResults each cluster Perceptu Engagement with al Number of VLECluster learning participants Frequency Grade styles 1 VAK 19 (26%) 32 8.5 2 V 1 (1%) 31 7 3 VK 6 (8%) 31 7.5 4 A 13 (18%) 16 5 5 AK 18 (25%) 21 5.5 6 VA 15 (21%) 25 6 21
  22. 22. Conclusions Students with VAK, VK and V perceptual learning style contribute the most, whereas those with A alone contribute the least. Designers of online classes should be aware of their teaching styles and how these match students’ learning styles. 22
  23. 23. Reflection The grades were given by the lecturer alone, providing no reliability analysis. The criteria used to grade the quality of involvement were not described. Students with other academic background might reveal different perceptual learning styles patterns. 23
  24. 24. Thankyou forlistening! 24

×