大学生课堂体验对学习方式影响的实证研究——基于多水平分析的结果被引量：78

Empirical Research of the Impact on the Learning Style by College Students' Classroom Experience——Based on the Results of Multi-level Analysis

原文传递

导出

摘要基于全国23个省、自治区和直辖市39所高等学校的74687名大学本科生的学情调查数据,采用两水平分层线性模型分析大学生课堂体验对学习方式的影响,结果显示,我国大学生的课堂体验对学习方式具有显著影响,学校特征也能够改变课堂体验对学习方式的影响程度。此外,学生的学科、年级、性别、学习观等个体特征,以及学校类型和所处区域的学校特征也显著影响大学生的学习方式。转变我国大学生的学习方式,提高高校的人才培养质量,必须改善大学生的课堂体验,深入研究院校差异,依据学科特点创新教育教学方法,尽早做好大学生的心理和学习调适,提高教学设计的针对性。 On the basis of data of 74 687 university students from 39 universities in 23 provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities in the country, the present study used the two-level hierarchical linear model to investigate the effects of university students＂ course experience on their learning approaches. The results show that Chinese university students＂ course experience significantly affects their learning approaches, and the university characteristics can also change the impact of course experience on learning approaches. In addition, university students＂ learning approaches are affected by individual and university characteristics, including students＂ discipline, grade, gender, conceptions of learning, type of university, location of university and so on. To change Chinese university students＂ learning approaches and promote the quality of talent cultivation in higher education, we should improve university students＂ course experience, deeply investigate institutional differences, innovate teaching methods on the basis of disciplinary differences, help university students complete their psychological and learning adjustments, and focus on instructional design to accommodate individual characteristics.

作者郭建鹏杨凌燕史秋衡

机构地区厦门大学教育研究院美国爱荷华大学教育学院厦门大学高等教育发展研究中心

出处《教育研究》 CSSCI 北大核心 2013年第2期111-119,共9页 Educational Research

基金国家社会科学基金(教育学科)国家重点课题"大学生学习情况调查研究"(课题批准号:AIA100007)的研究成果

关键词学习方式课堂体验高等教育质量两水平分层线性模型 learning approach, classroom experience, quality of higher education, two-level hierarchical linearmodel

分类号 G642.4 [文化科学—高等教育学]

引文网络
相关文献

参考文献12

1Baeten M. Kyndt, et al. Using Student-centred Learning Environments to Stimulate Deep Approaches to Learning: Factors Encouraging or Discouraging Their Effectiveness [J]. Educational Research Review, 2010, (3).
2Entwistle N. & McCune V. The Conceptual Bases of Study Strategy Inventories [J]. Educational Psychology Review, 2004 (4).
3Lietz, P. & Matthews, B. The Effects of College Students' Personal Values on Changes in Learning Approaches [J]. Research in Higher Education, 2010, ( 1 ).
4Diseth A. Pallesen, et al. Academic Achievement among First Semester Undergraduate Psychology Students: The Role of Course Experience, Effort, Motives and Learning Strategies [J]. Higher Education,2010, (3).
5史秋衡,郭建鹏.我国大学生学情状态与影响机制的实证分析[J].教育研究,2012,33(2):109-121. 被引量：202
6Ferrun J. Dailey F. & Yi Q. Effects of Misspecifying the First-level Error Structure in Two-level Models of Change [J]. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 2002, (3).
7Barcikowski, R. Statistical Power with Group Mean as the Unit of Analysis [J]. Journal of Educational Statistics, 1981, (3).
8Luke, D. Multilevel modeling[ M ]. Newbury Park, CA : Sage, 2004.
9Enders, C. K., Tofighi, D. Centering Predictor Variables in Cross-sectional Multilevel Models: A New Look at an Old Issue [J]. Psychological Methods, 2007, (2).
10Pimparyon P. Roff, et al. Educational Environment, Student Approaches to Learning and Academic Achievement in a Thai Nursing School [ J ]. Medical Teacher, 2000, (4).

二级参考文献12

1Diseth, A. Students' evaluation of teaching, approaches to learning, and academic achievement [J]. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Researeh, 2007, (2).
2Cano F. Epistemological beliefs and approaches to learning: Their change through secondary school and their influence on academic performance [J]. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 2005, (2).
3Prosser, M., & Trigweil, K. Perceptions of the teaching environment and its relationship to approaches to teaching [J]. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 1997, ( 1 ).
4Hu, L., & Bender, P. M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternations [J]. Structural Equation Modeling, 1999, (6).
5Biggs, J., Kember, D., & Leu.ng, D. The revised two-factor study process questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F [J]. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 2001, (1).
6Entwistle, N., Tait, H., & MaCune, V. Patterns of response to an approaches to studying inventory across contrasting groups and contexts [J]. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 2000, ( 1 ).
7Marton, F., Wen, Q., & Wong, K. 'Read a hundred times and the meaning will appear…' Changes in Chinese University students' views of the temporal structure of learning [J]. Higher Education, 2005, (3).
8Marton, F., Dall' Alba, G., & Beaty. E. Conceptions of learning [J]. International Journal of Educational Research, 1993, (19).
9Ramsden, P. A performance indicator of teaching quality in ihigher education: The course experience questionnaire [J]. Studies in Higher Education, 1991, i2).
10Marton, F., & Saljo, R. On qualitative differences in learning I - Outcome and process [J]. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 1976, ( 1 ).