Cargando…
Level of consistency between students’ self-reported and observed study approaches in flipped classroom courses: How does it influence students’ academic learning outcomes?
Using Student Approaches to Learning research as a theoretical framework, the present study used both self-reported and observational log data to understand students’ study approaches in a flipped classroom course amongst 143 computer science undergraduate students. Specifically, it aimed to examine...
Autor principal: | |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10263321/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37310956 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286549 |
_version_ | 1785058215592984576 |
---|---|
author | Han, Feifei |
author_facet | Han, Feifei |
author_sort | Han, Feifei |
collection | PubMed |
description | Using Student Approaches to Learning research as a theoretical framework, the present study used both self-reported and observational log data to understand students’ study approaches in a flipped classroom course amongst 143 computer science undergraduate students. Specifically, it aimed to examine: 1) to what extent students’ study approaches identified by self-reported and observational log data are consistent with each other; and 2) to what extent students’ academic learning outcomes differ between students who showed consistent and inconsistent study approaches by self-reported and observational log data. Using The Revised Study Process Questionnaire, students were clustered as reporting either a Deep or a Surface Study Approach. Using frequencies of students’ participation in five online learning activities, they were classified as adopting either an Active or a Passive Study Approach. A 2 x 2 cross-tabulation showed a positive and moderate association between clusters of students’ study approaches resulted from two types of data. Amongst students who self-reported a Deep Study Approach, the proportion of students who adopted an Active Study Approach (80.7%) was significantly higher than those who adopted a Passive Study Approach (19.3%). In contrast, of the students who self-reported a Surface Study Approach, the proportion of students who used a Passive Study Approach (51.2%) was significantly higher than those who used an Active Study Approach (48.8%). Furthermore, students who had good study approaches by both self-report and observation did not differ from students who adopted an Active study approach by observation but reported a Surface Study Approach on course grades. Likewise, there was no significant difference in terms of academic learning outcomes between those who had poor study approaches by both self-report and observation and those who adopted Passive study approach by observation but reported a Deep Study Approach. Future studies may consider incorporating some qualitative methods in order to find out possible reasons behind the inconsistencies between self-reported and observed study approaches. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10263321 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-102633212023-06-15 Level of consistency between students’ self-reported and observed study approaches in flipped classroom courses: How does it influence students’ academic learning outcomes? Han, Feifei PLoS One Research Article Using Student Approaches to Learning research as a theoretical framework, the present study used both self-reported and observational log data to understand students’ study approaches in a flipped classroom course amongst 143 computer science undergraduate students. Specifically, it aimed to examine: 1) to what extent students’ study approaches identified by self-reported and observational log data are consistent with each other; and 2) to what extent students’ academic learning outcomes differ between students who showed consistent and inconsistent study approaches by self-reported and observational log data. Using The Revised Study Process Questionnaire, students were clustered as reporting either a Deep or a Surface Study Approach. Using frequencies of students’ participation in five online learning activities, they were classified as adopting either an Active or a Passive Study Approach. A 2 x 2 cross-tabulation showed a positive and moderate association between clusters of students’ study approaches resulted from two types of data. Amongst students who self-reported a Deep Study Approach, the proportion of students who adopted an Active Study Approach (80.7%) was significantly higher than those who adopted a Passive Study Approach (19.3%). In contrast, of the students who self-reported a Surface Study Approach, the proportion of students who used a Passive Study Approach (51.2%) was significantly higher than those who used an Active Study Approach (48.8%). Furthermore, students who had good study approaches by both self-report and observation did not differ from students who adopted an Active study approach by observation but reported a Surface Study Approach on course grades. Likewise, there was no significant difference in terms of academic learning outcomes between those who had poor study approaches by both self-report and observation and those who adopted Passive study approach by observation but reported a Deep Study Approach. Future studies may consider incorporating some qualitative methods in order to find out possible reasons behind the inconsistencies between self-reported and observed study approaches. Public Library of Science 2023-06-13 /pmc/articles/PMC10263321/ /pubmed/37310956 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286549 Text en © 2023 Feifei Han https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Han, Feifei Level of consistency between students’ self-reported and observed study approaches in flipped classroom courses: How does it influence students’ academic learning outcomes? |
title | Level of consistency between students’ self-reported and observed study approaches in flipped classroom courses: How does it influence students’ academic learning outcomes? |
title_full | Level of consistency between students’ self-reported and observed study approaches in flipped classroom courses: How does it influence students’ academic learning outcomes? |
title_fullStr | Level of consistency between students’ self-reported and observed study approaches in flipped classroom courses: How does it influence students’ academic learning outcomes? |
title_full_unstemmed | Level of consistency between students’ self-reported and observed study approaches in flipped classroom courses: How does it influence students’ academic learning outcomes? |
title_short | Level of consistency between students’ self-reported and observed study approaches in flipped classroom courses: How does it influence students’ academic learning outcomes? |
title_sort | level of consistency between students’ self-reported and observed study approaches in flipped classroom courses: how does it influence students’ academic learning outcomes? |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10263321/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37310956 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286549 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT hanfeifei levelofconsistencybetweenstudentsselfreportedandobservedstudyapproachesinflippedclassroomcourseshowdoesitinfluencestudentsacademiclearningoutcomes |