All Ireland Society for Higher Education
| Name: | Kelly , Mary |
|---|---|
| Email: | markelly@dental.tcd.ie |
| Institution: | Trinity College Dublin |
Aileen, Patterson, patteram@tcd.ie Coffey, Sean, pg004587@sghms.ac.uk Shanley, Diarmuid, dshanley@tcd.ie
Aims (1) to establish the learning profiles (approaches and
styles) of a sample of students at entry to each of six schools
of the Faculty of Health Sciences and to identify any change in
learning profiles which might occur during their first
undergraduate year.(2) To use the results of the learning profile
study to inform curriculum design and to facilitate intervention
where inappropriate learning styles were identified. Background
Educational research1,2,3 has resulted in the development of
questionnaires which reveal two very important aspects of
learning. Firstly, the process (deep strategic or surface
apathetic) adopted prior to learning and which directly determine
the outcome of the learning. Secondly, the predisposition
(including attitudes and behaviours) to adopt a particular
process when learning. Methods The study involved a total of 314
students. Identification of learning profiles was based on the
administration of three internationally validated questionnaires
(a) Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students (ASSIST),
(b) Learning Styles Questionnaire (LSQ), (c ) Learning and Study
Strategy Inventory (LASSI). The set of questionnaires was
re-administered one year later. Results: The deep and surface
domains of the ASSIST, were correlated with most domains of
the LASSI, and with the Reflector, Theorist, Pragmatist
domains of the LSQ. No significant correlations were found
between the LASSI and the Reflector Theorist and Pragmatist
domains of the LSQ. The Activist domain of the LSQ was
inversely related to the Time Management domain of the LASSI
and showed no other correlations. Further analysis is in
progress. Conclusions: The predominant Learning Style was
Reflector and the least preferred was Pragmatist. The
predominant Learning approach was Strategic, however there
were at least 15% of students who were exclusively Surface
Apathetic.
(Abstract ref: #25.)