To promote active learning, lecturers should know how their students learn. With this knowledge, the lecturers can plan lessons that take advantage of the students’ learning preferences or challenge learning approaches that are not particularly beneficial. This study examined what students from Singapore Polytechnic reported about how they learned engineering mathematics. A questionnaire consisting of 57 items was designed to cover activities classified under Conscientious Efforts, Metacognition, Involving Others, and Resources. A group of 235 Year 2 Engineering Mathematics (Maths 2) students rated these activities in terms of frequency of use and helpfulness before and after the Maths 2 module. The findings are interpreted in relation to active learning mentioned in Standard 8 of the 12 CDIO Standards. Lecturers may use similar techniques to better understand how their students learn in order to design lessons that take into consideration these ways of learning.
Pages:
10
Affiliations:
Singapore Polytechnic, Singapore
Nanyang Polytechnic, Singapore
Keywords:
Student perceptions
traditional study behaviour
Active learning
social dimension of learning
learning resources
Engineering Mathematics
Year:
2009
Reference:
Biggs J., Teaching for quality learning at university (2nd ed.), Open University Press, Berkshire, 2003.:
Entwistle N., “Contrasting perspectives on learning”, In Marton F., Hounsel D. and Entwistle, N., The experience of learning: Implications for teaching and studying in higher education, Scottish Academic Press, Edinburgh, 1997.:
Marton F. and Saljo R., “On qualitative differences in learning. I. Outcome and process”, British Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 46, 1976, pp 4-11.:
Prosser M. and Trigwell K., “Understanding learning and teaching: The experience in higher education”, The Society for Research into Higher Education, Open University Press, Buckingham, 1999.:
Ramsden P., Learning to Teach in Higher Education, Cornwall, RoutledgeFalmer, 2003.:
CDIO Inittiatives, www.cdio.org:
Alsina C., “Why the professor must be a stimulating teacher: Towards a new paradigm of teaching mathematics at university level”, In Holton D. (Ed.), The teaching and learning of mathematics at university level, pp 3-12, Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2001.:
Bligh D.A., What’s the use of lectures?, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, 2000:
Saroyan A. and Snell L.S., “Variations in lecturing styles”, Higher Education, Vol. 33, 1987, pp 85-104.:
Struyven K., Dochy F. and Janssens S., “Students’ likes and dislikes regarding studentactivating and lecture-based educational settings: Consequnces for students’ perceptions of the learning environment, student learning and performance”, European Journal of Psychology of Education, Vol. XXIII, No. 3, 2008, pp 295-317.:
Hattie J. A. C., Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement, London, Routledge, 2009.:
Holton, D. A. (Ed.), The teaching and learning of mathematics at university level: An ICMI study, Boston, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2001.:
Ball G., Stephenson B., Smith G., Wood L. and Coupland M., “Creating a diversity of mathematical experiences in tertiary students”, International Journal of Mathematics Education in Science and Teachnology, Vol. 29, No. 6, 1998, pp 827-841.:
Bell A., Crust R., Shannon A. and Swan M., Awareness of learning, reflection and transfer in school mathematics. ESRC Project: R000-23-2329. (Parts one, two, three), Shell Centre for Mathematical Education, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, 1993.:
Shimizu Y., “Discrepancies in perceptions of lesson structure between the teacher and the students in the mathematics classroom”, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, April 2002. Available from http://extranet.edfac.unimelb.edu.au/DSME/lps/subpubs.shtml.:
Low-Ee H. W. and Wong, K. Y., “Student learning experiences: A week at Singapore Polytechnic”, paper presented for Discussion Group 23 (Current problems and challenges in non-university tertiary mathematics education), International Congress on Mathematical Education (ICME-11), Monterrey, Mexico, 6–13 July 2008, available from http://dg.icme11.org/document/get/452.:
Kember D., Biggs J. and Leung D.Y.P., “Examining the multidimensionality of approaches to learning through the development of a revised version of the learning process questionnaire”, British Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 74, 2004, pp 261–280.:
Mason J., Mathematics Teaching Practice: Guide for University and College Lecturers, London, Horwood Publishing, 2002.:
Schiefele U. and Csikszentmihalyi M., “Motivation and ability as factors in mathematics experience and achievement”, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, Vol. 26, No. 2, 1995, pp 163-181.:
Schoenfeld A.H., A sourcebook for college mathematics teaching, The Mathematical Association of America, New York, 1990.:
Wolters C. A., “Advancing achievement goal theory: Using goal structures and goal orientations to predict students’ motivation, cognition, and achievement”, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 96, No. 2, 2004, pp 236-250.:
Chang L., “Using confirmatory factor analysis of multitrait-multimethod data to assess the psychometrical equivalence of 4-point and 6-point Likert-type scales”, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, April 14-15, 1993.:
Oates G., Paterson J., Reilly I. and Statham M., “Effective tutorial programmes in tertiary mathematics”, International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, Vol. 36, No. 7, 2005, pp 731-739.:
Fisher A.T., Alder, J.G. and Avasalu M.W., “Lecturing performance appraisal criteria: Staff and student differences, Australian Journal of Education, Vol. 42, No. 2, 1998, pp 153-168.:
on December 9, 2018 - 13:03 Tyrone Machado
Conceive
Design
Implement
Operate
