Low-Ee Huei Wuan, SP

1
STUDENTS PERCEPTIONS OF WAYS TO LEARN
ENGINEERING MATHEMATICS ARE THESE WAYS
CDIO-RELATED?

• Low-Ee Huei Wuan, SP
• Wong Khoon Yoong, NIE

2
Introduction

• There had been many research studies on learning
  experiences of students in higher education
  (Biggs, 2003 Entwistle, 1997)
• Surface or deep approaches to learning depending
  on workload and teaching (Marton Saljo, 1976)
• Relevant to CDIO Standard 8 (active learning)

3
This presentation

• Learning experiences of SP students
• Data collected before SP adopted CDIO Initiative
• Will suggest several areas of implementing active
  learning, based on students perspective, rather
  than those of faculty or standards-setters

4
Literature review 1/2

• Active learning possible even with lecture as
  teaching method (Struyven, Dochy Janssens,
  2008)
• Key is in prompt, and quality feedback on student
  work (ibid.)
• Requirement of feedback for student is found in
  CDIO Standard 8

5
Literature review 2/2

• Students may not recognise objectives of tasks as
  planned by lecturers (Bell, Crust, Shannon
  Swan, 1993)
• Students perceptions may differ amongst
  themselves, and with lecturer (Shimizu, 2002,
  Low-Ee Wong, 2008)

6
Participants

• 235 Year 2 Engineering Mathematics students
• Pre-SSQ (Student Study Questionnaire)
  administered in May 2007
• Post-SSQ at end Oct 2007

7
Instrument 1/2

• 57 6-point Likert-type items
• Conscientious Effort 13 items
• Metacognition 15 items
• Involving others 15 items
• Resources for learning 10 items
• Miscellaneous 4 items

8
Instrument 2/2

• Frequency of use How often did you learn in
  this way? (1 Not at all 2 Occasionally 3
  Sometimes 4 Quite often 5 Often 6
  Always)
• Helpfulness How helpful it was towards learning
  Maths 1/2? (1 Waste of time 2 Of little
  help 3 Some help 4 Quite helpful 5
  Helpful 6 Very helpful).

9
Findings Frequency of use

• Mean of 1.64 to 4.24 occasional to quite often
• None of the study behaviour were used very often,
  or always
• SD of 1.11 to 1.67 variation in use of study
  behaviour

10
Findings Helpfulness

• Mean of 2.01 to 4.27 little help to quite often
• None of the study behaviour were helpful or very
  helpful
• SD of 1.28 to 1.66 study behaviours more helpful
  to some students and less so for others

11
Table 1Top four items in terms of frequency of
use
Cat Q Ways of learning Maths 2 Frequency Frequency Helpfulness Helpfulness
Cat Q Ways of learning Maths 2 Mean SD Mean SD
CE 2 Paid attention to lecturers explanations. 4.14 1.47 4.27 1.44
MC 26 Recognised when to use the appropriate mathematical formula. 3.90 1.40 4.07 1.44
RE 44 Took note of lecturers hints for tests and examination. 3.91 1.54 3.80 1.55
RE 46 Worked through past year tests and examination papers in Maths. 4.24 1.67 4.27 1.65
12
Table 2 Top four metacognitive items
Cat Q Ways of learning Maths 2 Frequency Frequency Helpfulness Helpfulness
Cat Q Ways of learning Maths 2 Mean SD Mean SD
MC 26 Recognised when to use the appropriate mathematical formula. 3.90 1.40 4.07 1.44
MC 19 Checked my work while doing it. 3.76 1.44 3.70 1.44
MC 23 Analysed mistakes made in solving tutorial problems. 3.71 1.44 3.89 1.43
MC 47 Identified important concepts learnt in Maths. 3.62 1.43 3.80 1.53
13
Table 3Bottom four items in terms of frequency
of use
Cat Q Ways of learning Maths 2 Frequency Frequency Helpfulness Helpfulness
Cat Q Ways of learning Maths 2 Mean SD Mean SD
RE 8 Referred to mathematics books from the library. 1.64 1.11 2.01 1.40
RE 11 Used computer-based programs e.g., Graphmatica and online applets. 1.93 1.26 2.07 1.28
IO 1 Copied my friends Maths tutorials. 2.04 1.18 2.88 1.61
RE 22 Searched for mathematics resources on the internet. 2.15 1.39 2.31 1.40
14
Table 4Four items Maths 1 means higher than
Maths 2
Cat Q Ways of learning Maths 1 or Maths 2 Maths 1 Maths 1 Maths 2 Maths 2
Cat Q Ways of learning Maths 1 or Maths 2 Mean SD Mean SD
CE 2 Paid attention to lecturers explanations. 4.67 1.15 4.14 1.47
CE 36 Completed tutorial exercises assigned by the lecturer. 4.39 1.37 3.86 1.51
CE 52 Was punctual for Maths lessons. 4.32 1.36 3.74 1.50
CE 55 Looked forward to coming to class. 3.55 1.49 3.13 1.50
15
Table 5Four items Maths 1 means lower than Maths
2
Cat Q Ways of learning Maths 1 or Maths 2 Maths 1 Maths 1 Maths 2 Maths 2
Cat Q Ways of learning Maths 1 or Maths 2 Mean SD Mean SD
CE 29 Read through Maths lecture notes before the next lecture. 2.29 1.25 2.59 1.34
MC 57 Planned my own schedule for Maths revision. 3.18 1.58 3.35 1.64
IO 7 Approached Maths lecturers even after class. 1.96 1.10 2.19 1.24
IO 28 Presented solutions of tutorials to the class. 2.38 1.31 2.55 1.28
16
Figure 1 Bar charts of frequency and helpfulness
17
Concluding Remarks 1/4

• Study provided empirical data about learning
  experience at SP
• Students generally made use of traditional study
  behaviours typical of students who focus on
  getting good grades
• Objective of doing well in traditional assessment

18
Concluding Remarks 2/4

• Slightly lower means in traditional study
  behaviour for Maths 2
• Slightly higher mean for metacognitive behaviour
  in Maths 2, although not significant
• Interactions with others during learning not
  common
• Use of technology resources and library books was
  quire rare

19
Concluding Remarks 3/4

• Enriching curriculum with more experiential,
  industry-related tasks
• Students to solve real problems
• Include modelling using technology
• Include learning activities involving others
• New activities to be infused explicitly but
  slowly

20
Concluding Remarks 4/4

• For staff development in Standard 10 of CDIO
  Initiative, teaching staff to be encouraged to
  conduct action research
• One feasible area is to gather data on student
  learning in order to better match the planned
  learning experiences to student preferences of
  learning

21
Feedback

• Appreciate input from audience
• Observations that I might have missed?
• Comments?

22
Thank you
Huei Wuan lowhw_at_sp.edu.sg