4.2 The Study Habit Survey
4.2.6 Study Techniques
Study techniques, as described in Chapter 3.9.6 was divided into six sub parts, preferred learning style, group work, rewriting notes, consulting learner guides, tutorials and test
preparation. Each component will be considered in turn below. An extra component, not asked in the survey but the information became available during data gathering and added to this section was gender and is discussed at the end.
Firstly considering learning styles, the VARK classification of learning styles, as discussed in Chapter 2.1.4.1, was used to categorise them. A summary of the responses to the four learning styles, viz. visual, auditory, read/write and kinaesthetic appears in the Table 4.8 below.
102 Table 4.8: Summary of Respondents Preferred Learning Styles
Learning style Percentage of respondents (%)
visual 49
auditory 6
read/write 31
kinaesthetic 14
It was noted that some respondents indicated more than one style and a few others ranked them, both options that were specified on the survey questionnaire. Looking at a summary of the styles in Table 4.8, it can be seen that visual learners were in the majority in the class, whilst auditory learners were clearly in the minority. In Felder and Brent’s (2005, p.61) study summary by various researchers using Felder and Soloman’s Index of Learning Styles (ILS) mentioned in Chapter 3.9.6, encompassing twelve institutions across various disciplines and study levels, they found that “82 percent of the undergraduates were visual learners, while most engineering instruction is overwhelmingly verbal, emphasizing written explanations and mathematical formulations of physical phenomena over demonstrations and visual
illustrations”. As lectures at the DUT are mostly verbal this indicates a potential mismatch between the style of presentation and the students preferred learning style.
It was also noted that no one chose auditory exclusively but only in combination with one or more of the other styles. All the other styles were either a single choice or combination with various other styles. Further, of the four styles, auditory was the only one that did not receive a response from the SPSS analysis, possibly because, either no one chose this type exclusively as mentioned above, or else no final examination mark was available for analysis with this style included and thus it was excluded from the count, since only fifty three of the total of ninety six participants, as seen in Table 4.1, were included by SPSS in this particular analysis. The other three styles together produced a 2-sided Pearson Chi-Square of 0,813, indicating no great significance or relationship to passing the subject. However these results are unreliable because two of the six cell counts for the three styles present were less than five, thus no further analysis could be made. However, considering the output from SPSS concerning learning styles it was interesting to note that visual learners were by far the majority of counts in the table, at 64%, and that they also obtained the highest pass rates, with 50% of visual learners passing,
read/write style second at 43,8% and kinaesthetic third at 33,3%, although not a reliable result
103 for kinaesthetic in that only one individual count was present for a pass.
As much of thermodynamics involves the use of charts, graphs, diagrams and tables in order to get results, those inclined towards visual learning would be more likely to relate to the subject.
This may explain the higher pass rate of visual learners in the study semester, while at the same time highlighting the mismatch between student learning and teaching methods. A reference to a visual learner is also touched on later in the interviews in Chapter 4.4.3.1.2.
As part of the study, students were requested to go to a learning style web site, and go through the exercise to determine their individual learning style. Only eight (12%) indicated that they had done so and of those, only four passed the subject. No further analysis could be done on this as no details were given, although it would have been of interest to know their learning style preferences as compared to what the study habit survey indicated.
Felder, & Silverman (1988, p.678) found in studying their students preferred learning styles, that “Active learners work well in groups; reflective learners work better by themselves or with at most one other person”. Students were also asked if they worked in groups, and if so how often. Of the 57 valid entries in this category 72% indicated that they had worked in groups, but only 46,3% of those passed.
The next part of the survey considered if and how often students worked in groups. Although 75% indicated that they did work in groups, only 8% indicated that they did so often. Of the original four categories presented for frequency of group work, six of the eight cell counts were less than five, so the output was not reliable. It was therefore decided to reduce them to two, always/sometimes and seldom/never, thus giving more acceptable counts. When this was done, only one cell had a count of less than five. Although students are encouraged to work together, the output was somewhat disappointing, with only a 50% pass in the often/sometimes category, and a higher pass rate of 63,6% in the seldom/never category. Plant, Ericsson, Hill, & Asberg (2005, p.101), as mentioned in Chapter 3.9.6, indicate that working with others can cause unnecessary distractions thereby reducing the effectiveness or quality of the group studying.
Having observed our students whilst studying in groups, the Researcher has noted that some members of the group are often causing a distraction by talking or shouting to others in the neighbourhood. Also a lot of students wear earplugs and are hooked into their cell phones listening to music, which can typically be heard by other members of the group. Both of these
104 can be highly distracting, reducing the probability of quality study.
The next component was rewriting of notes and how often. Only 25% of students indicated that they rewrote their notes. The rewriting of class notes was not a good indicator of success rate, with a 2-sided Pearson Chi-Square score of 0,414 Of those who did, 56,3% passed and 43,8% of those who did not, passed. Again, as the cell counts of the four original categories were low it was decided to re-evaluate them as two categories, namely weekly or less, and monthly or more.
This then achieved a 2-sided Pearson Chi-Square of 0,833, an insignificant result, with those who did so more frequently achieving a slightly higher pass rate of 60% as compared with those who did so less frequently only achieving a pass rate of 56,3%.
The next statement involved the frequency with which students consulted their learner guide was also investigated under this category. The learner guide informs the students of all the requirements for the subject, as mentioned in Chapter 3.9.6. Although a good understanding of these would be helpful for students, it was not found to be a significant factor in determining success in the course, with a 2-sided Pearson Chi-Square of 0,469 after reducing the original five categories down to two, often/sometimes and seldom/never. The pass rates in the two categories was 42,5% and 52,9% respectively.
Another component investigated in this category was tutorials, both from an attendance perspective and how far the students take the tutorial questions. There are six tutorial handout sheets for the subject, one for each major section, with questions of varying difficulty as one works down the sheet. Firstly, tutorial attendance was considered. This was broken down into four categories originally but three of the eight cell counts were less than five, making analysis unreliable. It was regrouped into two categories regularly and sometimes/seldom/never. This realised a 2-sided Pearson Chi-Square of 0,464, indicating no significance. However, it was interesting to observe that those who attended regularly had a 51,6% pass rate and those who did not had only a 41,7% pass rate. Considering next how many of the tutorial questions on the sheet were attempted, the original five categories were simplified down to two, those who did all the questions and those who did some/tried them/if pushed, no student indicating that they never did any. This gave a 2-sided Pearson Chi-Square of 0,136, not a significant indicator, but lower than most others. When looking at the percentages, 60% of those who
did all their tutorial questions passed and only 39,5% of those who did some or attempted them passed, indicating a 50% greater probability of passing if they did all of them, as seen by Graph
105 4.5.
GRAPH 4.5: Do all or some tutorial questions
The last component of this category was what students did the night before a test. The obvious one would be to get an early night, partying being a definite cause for concern, but, fortunately, no one chose this route. Again of the counts in the cells for the four choices, 50% were below the minimum of five, so it was regrouped into two, get an early night and all others. This did not, however, indicate any influence over the pass rate, with a 2-sided Pearson Chi-Square of 0,643. This was also indicated by the pass rates, 43,8% for get an early night and 50% for all others.
Another component that became available during the data gathering, but was not on the
questionnaire, was gender, which was also tested to see if there was any significance to passing.
Due to low numbers of females in the class the 2-sided Pearson Chi-Square could not be used.
Instead a 2-sided Fisher’s Exact Test was used, giving a significance of 0,479, indicating that gender was not significant. Looking at the pass rates of male to female, 50% of males passed and 33,3% of females passed. In a study including learning styles of students by Rosati (1993 and 1997) (as cited in Felder, & Brent, 2005, p.59), no significant difference was “found for academically strong male students or for female students”. Also, Wise et al. (2004) (as cited in Felder, & Brent, 2005, p.66), in a study of two groups consisting of eight male and female students doing a first-year project-based engineering design course found no initial difference between the two groups. However, as they progressed through their studies a difference in the two group’s intellectual development was noted. This type of change has also been noted by
106 Belenky et al. (1997) and Baxter Magolda (1992) (ibid, p.67).