Professional Documents
Culture Documents
31762103012330
31762103012330
COLLEGE STUDENTS
by
of
Doctor of Education
APPROVAL
of a thesis submitted by
Il-cIl
Date
Chairperson, Graduate Committee
Date
Signature
Date
IL I I I
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF T A B L E S ...................................... viii
ABSTRACT . ......................................... ix
Page
3. METHODS AND PROCEDURES ........................ 47
Introduction . . . .......... .................... 47
Population ....................................... . 49
Sampling .........................................! 50
Instrument ........ ................................ 51
V a l i d i t y ............... 52
R e l i a b i l i t y ..................................... 5 5
Procedures for Data Collection .................. | 55
Overview of Data A n a l y s i s .................. 57
vii
Page
6 . CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS.......... 132
Summary <........................................... 1 3 2
Profiles of Learners .......................... 133
Discriminant Analysis ........................ 134
Grades ......................................... 134
G e n d e r ........................................ 135
P r o g r a m .................................... ...
A g e ................ 136
Cluster A n a l y s i s ................ 136
C o n c l u s i o n s ................ 137
Implications and Recommendations ................ 140
T e a c h i n g .................... 140
Teaching Navigators ...................... 142
Teaching Monitors ' . ........................... 143
Teaching Critical Thinkers .................. 143
Teaching Engagers . . . .................... 144
Teaching Networkers ........................ 144
Students . . . ....................................
R e s e a r c h ...................................... ...
Epilogue . ..........................................
R E F E R E N C E S .......................................... ...
v iii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Number of Respondents from Each
Participating Col l e g e ............ ............ 51
ix
ABSTRACT
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Adult Learning
focus away from the role of the instructor and toward that
of the learner.
Learning Strategies
(b) the use of external memory aids such as item lists, and
I
learning over the past 15 years not only has provided the
Purpose
I
12
Research Questions
13
Limitations of the Study
Definition of Terms
CHAPTER 2
Adult Learning
18
knowledge and skill to learn effectively in whatever
learning situation one encounters (1982).
Learning Strategies
Metacoqnition Strategies
Metamotivation Strategies
V
33
affective domain is once again the dominant factor in
learning with this component. The reward for learning can
result from very specific, goal-oriented activities or from
a feeling of increased competence or control over an
environment. Motivation results from people's attempts to
Memory Strategies
they have often been taken for granted over long periods of
time, their limitations are not readily noticed" (Fellenz,
42
CHAPTER 3
Introduction
Population
Sampling
Instrument
Validity
Reliability
scenarios that had the most relevance for them. They were
(Conti & Fellenz, 1989; Conti & Kolody, 1995; Hays, 1995;
Kolody & Conti, 1996; Strakal, 1995; Yabui, 1993), a
60
validity of interpretation. This process involves using the
existing quantitative data and gathering additional
qualitative data (Conti, 1996, p. 70).
CHAPTER 4
QUANTITATIVE FINDINGS
post facto (Latin— 'after the fact') since both effect and
Cumulative
Age Groupings Frequency Percent Percent
17 2 0 0
18 181 16 16
19 217 19 36
20 144 13 48
21 97 9 57
22 70 6 63
23 47 4 67
24-30 175 16 83
31-40 148 13 96
41-71 42 4 100
Cumulative
Value Frequency Percent Percent
Possibly Use, and one point for an item that they would Not
Likely Use. Since there are four scenarios which each have
were near the middle of the range (see Table 6). Resource
Discriminant Analysis
Grades
Gender
The group centroid for the male group was -.318, and it was
.147 for the female group. The canonical correlation was .21
Program
Age
group, and -.264 for the Over 23 age group. The canonical
86
group, and .033 for the Over 23 age group. The canonical
correlation was .0987 for the second function relating to
Summary
CHAPTER 5
Cluster Analysis
Strategy df . SS MS Z E
Planning
Between 4 671.50 167.88 63.17 .0001
Within 1138 3024.22 2.66
Monitoring
Between 4 329.95 82.49 36.84 .0001
Within 1138 2480.91 2.18
Adjusting
Between 4 414.88 103.72 40.18 .0001
Within 1138 2937.61 2.58
Attention
Between 4 1041.64 260.41 100.88 .0001
Within 1138 2937.62 2.58
Reward
Between 4 925.24 231.31 97.57 .0001
Within 1138 2697.98 2.37
Confidence
Between 4 1938.40 484.60 232.90 .0001
Within 1138 2367.88 2.08
Organization
Between ■4 481.58 120.40 44.72 .0001
Within 1138 3063.48 2.69
Use of External Aids
Between 4 969.54 242.39 103.47 .0001
Within 1138 2665.97 2.34
Memory Application
Between 4 828.16 207.04 89.48 .0001
Within 1138 2633.19 2.31
Testing Assumptions
Between 4 263.96 65.99 26.63 .0001
Within 1138 2820.06 2.48
Generating Alternatives
Between 4 264.67 66.42 27.04 .0001
Within 1138 2795.26 2.46
Conditional Acceptance
Between 4 457.02 114.26 43.12 .0001
Within 1138 3015.62 2.65
Identification of Res.
Between 4 479.65 119.91 48.41 .0001
Within 1138 2818.83 2.48
Critical Use of Res.
Between 4 870.52 217.63 95.62 .0001
Within 1138 2590.02 2.28
Use of Human Resources
Between 4 363.93 90.98 35.73 .0001
Within 1138 2897.73 2.55
93
Variable df SS MS F E
Interview Data
(Conti & Fellenz, 1989; Conti & Kolody, 1995; Hays, 1995;
Navigators 7 5
Monitors 5 3
Critical Thinkers 5 4
Engagers 6 7
Networkers 5 4
Total 28 23
Navigators
group of the five types of learners (see Table 8), and this
group also contained the largest percentage of university
transfer students.
helps them to "keep on track" and to know that they are not
wasting their time doing a certain task incorrectly.
Monitors
they all agreed that they learn and perform better in it. It
These are the people who often sit quietly observing the
Critical Thinkers
way." They are easily bored with the mundane and are often
Encraaers
they are confident that the learning task will keep them
Networkers
.2 level, and the remaining 104 were all below the .2 level.
Function I
the cases and which can serve as guide for predicting future
placement of respondents into these groups was as follows:
D = .96 (Planning) +.38 (Monitoring) -.25
(Adjusting) + .97 (Attention) -.27 (Reward) -.46
(Confidence) + .15 (Organization) + .15 (External
Memory Aids) -.11 (Application) -.32 (Testing
Assumptions) + .70 (Generating Alternatives) +.19
(Critical Acceptance) + .21 (Identification of
Resources) + .23 (Use of Resources) + .47 (Use of
Human Resources) -2.82.
The group centroids for this first function for the clusters
Function 2
Function 3
the cases and which can serve as guide for predicting future
The group centroids for this third function for the clusters
were as follows: Cluster I (.416), Cluster 2 (-.692),
Cluster 3 (-.234), Cluster 4 (1.243), and Cluster 5 (-.967).
The canonical correlation was .6214 for this function. When
this is squared, it indicates that the groups explain 38.6%
of the variation in the discriminant function.
Function 4
CHAPTER 6
Summary
Profiles of Learners
from 17 to 71; 70.5% of the sample was female, and 29.5% was
divergence. Again, the group means were all near the middle
of the range. Testing Assumptions and Critical Use of
Resources, both with means of 8.85, were the two learning
strategies most commonly preferred by the participants. The
Discriminant Analysis
Cluster Analysis
five senses in their learning and learn best when they are
Conclusions
Teaching
for the educator to teach the other class members how to use
this particular strategy that may be unnatural to them and
thus to expand the learners' "toolkit" of strategies
(Fellenz & Conti, 1993) .
Students
Research
Epilogue
Horton, M., with Kohl, J., & Kohl, H. (1990). The long haul.
New York: Doubleday.
3 1762 10301233 O