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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Han, Feifei
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