Evaluation of using Computing and Information Technology. Do
students learning styles affect their evaluations?
Anne Jelfs, Prof. Chris Colbourn, University
College Northampton. UK.
Higher Education in the UK is adopting and using more in terms of Computer and Information
Technology (C&IT) in its teaching strategy. As members of the Assisting
Small-group Teaching through Electronic Resources (ASTER) project team we were interested
in the value of C&IT as a teaching tool. One of the aspects we looked at
was student evaluation of using C&IT for a Virtual Seminar series in Psychology. Our
research aimed to identify student learning styles within the group and how this affected
their adoption or rejection of the electronic medium.
The benefits of matched conditions for students’ learning strategies and
instructional systems has already been identified by Ford (1995), however we have found
little research on whether learning styles and evaluation of C&IT has any
relationship. Timpson and Andrew (1997) found in their research on evaluation that
students’ approaches to learning affected their evaluation of courses and that course
evaluation and teaching evaluation needed to be separated. If a major component of
the teaching is conveyed through C&IT we suggest that this is another variable which
needs consideration along with student learning styles when C&IT is evaluated. Dunn et
al (Dunn, Griggs et al. 1995) state that although some students learn when instruction is
provided through strategies that do not complement their learning styles, significantly
higher test scores are achieved when they are taught with strategies that complement their
learning preferences. These findings place the emphasis on learning styles at the
centre of the discussion on the development of increased use of C&IT in Higher
Education.
Our research study was based on a series of seminars conducted at University College
Northampton through an Intranet Web board. The students taking part were Third Year
Psychology degree level students completing an optional module which included ten seminar
sessions, five face-to-face and five using computer-mediated communication. The students
completed the short ASSIST (Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students) developed
by Tait & Entwistle (1996).
Our findings indicate only weak correlations between deep, strategic and surface
approaches to learning and evaluation of C&IT at a global level. However, individual
measures of the deep, strategic and surface approaches to learning indicate potentially
interesting relationships, such as positive correlations between the statement:
‘Often I find myself wondering whether the work I am doing here is really
worthwhile’ and ‘How comfortable did you feel whilst taking part in the virtual
seminars? We are currently researching these aspects of the data with a larger student
population. Further analysis of that data will be available for contribution to the
discussion outlined here. Significant positive correlations were also found between how
comfortable students felt when taking part in the virtual seminars and a desire to
increase the use of C&IT in psychology teaching. Students who were comfortable
with the virtual seminars tended to report the software easy to use. We aim to
continue to look at these factors within the domain of Psychology, but anticipate the need
to look at students’ approaches to study and evaluation of C&IT in other academic
areas.
References:
Dunn, R., S. Griggs, et al. (1995). “A Meta-Analytic Validation of the Dunn and Dunn
Model of Learning-Styles Preferences.” The Journal of Educational Research 88(6):
353-362.
Ford, N. (1995). “Levels and types of mediation in instructional systems: an
individual differences approach.” International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 43:
241-259.
Tait, H. and N. J. Entwistle (1996). “Identifying students at risk through
ineffective study strategies.” Higher Education 31: 99-118.
Timpson, W. and D. Andrew (1997). “Rethinking Student Evaluations and the Improvement
of Teaching: instruments for change at the University of Queensland.” Studies in
Higher Education 22(1): 55-65.