This is a good website for referencing in APA format.
http://www.liunet.edu/cwis/cwp/library/workshop/citapa.htm
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Cronbach's Alpha Reliability Test
The Cronbach's Alpha Reliability Test measures the internal consistency or the internal consistency reliability of a questionnaire through the calculation of Cronbach's alpha (α)coefficient.
Cronbach's alpha will generally increase when the correlations between the items increase.
α can take values between negative infinity and 1. As a rule of thumb, Cronbach’s α coefficient of 0.7 or higher (obtained on a substantial scale) indicates a high level of reliability of the ‘translated’ questionnaire.
Cronbach's alpha will generally increase when the correlations between the items increase.
α can take values between negative infinity and 1. As a rule of thumb, Cronbach’s α coefficient of 0.7 or higher (obtained on a substantial scale) indicates a high level of reliability of the ‘translated’ questionnaire.
Monday, December 3, 2007
Session 4: Assessing the Learning Environment II
The school learning environment can be broadly categorised by school, teacher and student dimensions. By these dimensions, we mean --
School: Leadership, school vision and strategic thrusts, school culture, discipline, security and other physical aspects of the environment.
Teachers: Teaching methodology, nurture, beliefs and the ability to bring out the best in every child.
Students: Interactions and relationships with teachers and fellow schoolmates, learning style, attitude and socioemotional learning.
Quantitative measurement of the school learning environment can be measured using the SLEQ (School Level Environment Questionnaire). The dimensions of the questionnaire follow Moo's schema of Relationship, Personal Development and System Maintenance and Change. These dimensions include: Student support, affiliation (in terms of bonding and identity), professional interest, achievement orientation, staff freedom (in terms of personal growth), involvement in participatory decision making, innovation, resource adequacy and work pressure. The questions follow a cyclical format for each dimension (eg. student support follows questions 1, 10, 19, 28) in a scale of 4 to 6 questions. This is to minimise inaccurate answering on the part of survey participants. The responses are graded on a 4-point Likert Scale.
The groups then came together to discuss 3 different case studies of secondary schools in Singapore. The case studies were very authentic and gave perspectives of different learning environments in each school.
Later in the day, we learnt about the use of SPSS software to analyse results obtained from the WIHIC questionnaire by doing the Cronbach alpha reliability test. After compiling the raw data on Excel, we copied the numerical data onto SPSS, leaving out the headings. Edit the headings in the variables view.
Sequence:
1) Click on Analyse
2) Go to Scale
3) Choose Reliability Analysis
4) To calculate value for student cohesiveness, highlight Pref1Sc--7Sc and move them over to the right column
5) Choose statistics
6) Choose Item, Scale......leaving Tukey's test and Intraclass coefficient unchecked.
7) Generate results.
8) Save results (filename.spo)
9) Change the filename to .html or .ppt format so that the file can be viewed without using the SPSS software.
In the analysis of the results, refer to Reliability Statistics, Summary Item Statistics and Scale Statistics.
Dr Quek also introduced us to this useful website on online learning:
eduweb.nie.edu.sg/onlinelearning
New terms that we came across:
*Cronbach Alpha Reliability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cronbach's_alpha
* Paired-sample t-test http://www.une.edu.au/WebStat/unit_materials/c6_common_statistical_tests/paired_sample_t.html
School: Leadership, school vision and strategic thrusts, school culture, discipline, security and other physical aspects of the environment.
Teachers: Teaching methodology, nurture, beliefs and the ability to bring out the best in every child.
Students: Interactions and relationships with teachers and fellow schoolmates, learning style, attitude and socioemotional learning.
Quantitative measurement of the school learning environment can be measured using the SLEQ (School Level Environment Questionnaire). The dimensions of the questionnaire follow Moo's schema of Relationship, Personal Development and System Maintenance and Change. These dimensions include: Student support, affiliation (in terms of bonding and identity), professional interest, achievement orientation, staff freedom (in terms of personal growth), involvement in participatory decision making, innovation, resource adequacy and work pressure. The questions follow a cyclical format for each dimension (eg. student support follows questions 1, 10, 19, 28) in a scale of 4 to 6 questions. This is to minimise inaccurate answering on the part of survey participants. The responses are graded on a 4-point Likert Scale.
The groups then came together to discuss 3 different case studies of secondary schools in Singapore. The case studies were very authentic and gave perspectives of different learning environments in each school.
Later in the day, we learnt about the use of SPSS software to analyse results obtained from the WIHIC questionnaire by doing the Cronbach alpha reliability test. After compiling the raw data on Excel, we copied the numerical data onto SPSS, leaving out the headings. Edit the headings in the variables view.
Sequence:
1) Click on Analyse
2) Go to Scale
3) Choose Reliability Analysis
4) To calculate value for student cohesiveness, highlight Pref1Sc--7Sc and move them over to the right column
5) Choose statistics
6) Choose Item, Scale......leaving Tukey's test and Intraclass coefficient unchecked.
7) Generate results.
8) Save results (filename.spo)
9) Change the filename to .html or .ppt format so that the file can be viewed without using the SPSS software.
In the analysis of the results, refer to Reliability Statistics, Summary Item Statistics and Scale Statistics.
Dr Quek also introduced us to this useful website on online learning:
eduweb.nie.edu.sg/onlinelearning
New terms that we came across:
*Cronbach Alpha Reliability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cronbach's_alpha
* Paired-sample t-test http://www.une.edu.au/WebStat/unit_materials/c6_common_statistical_tests/paired_sample_t.html
Reflection for Session 3: What Have I Learnt Today?
Today's takeaway was on the Assessment of Learning Environments -- rationale and approaches in terms of choosing the appropriate instrumentation tool. We were first introduced to the development of major philosophies behind the psychosocial aspect of learning such as motivation, needs, etc beginning with Murray and Lewin's research from the 1930s which transcended to Moo, Walberg, Fisher and Fraser. We also viewed some short video clips comparing lesson delivery styles - didactic, kinesthetic, problem-based and socratic, and how each of them can be effective in meeting the needs of the learners.
There are a wide range of quantitative instrumentation tools that can be used to assess Learning Environments. The rationale for assessing Learning Environments is to ensure that there is a reciprocity on the part of the learner on the teacher's intention so that effective teaching and learning can take place. In the event that reciprocity is not evident, then perhaps the instructor needs to reflect and improve on the classroom processes and the learning environment in general.
As a Science teacher, the instrument that I am particularly interested in will be the Science Laboratory Learning Environment Inventory (SLEI) as it complements Science Practical Assessments. Evidently, as we aspire towards TLLN, teaching and learning in the classroom will be continually evolving towards student-centred learning and constructivist approaches to teaching and learning.
My classmates have surfaced many interesting learning theories in the various researchers' works in the course of their presentations. Will have to go home and read up again. :)
There are a wide range of quantitative instrumentation tools that can be used to assess Learning Environments. The rationale for assessing Learning Environments is to ensure that there is a reciprocity on the part of the learner on the teacher's intention so that effective teaching and learning can take place. In the event that reciprocity is not evident, then perhaps the instructor needs to reflect and improve on the classroom processes and the learning environment in general.
As a Science teacher, the instrument that I am particularly interested in will be the Science Laboratory Learning Environment Inventory (SLEI) as it complements Science Practical Assessments. Evidently, as we aspire towards TLLN, teaching and learning in the classroom will be continually evolving towards student-centred learning and constructivist approaches to teaching and learning.
My classmates have surfaced many interesting learning theories in the various researchers' works in the course of their presentations. Will have to go home and read up again. :)
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Session 3: Assessing the Learning Environment I
The lesson started off with a recap of what constitutes Learning Environments, the why and what to assessing LE.
We were introduced to the background of prior research in LE, and were exposed to the works of Murray, Lewin, Leary (from the 1930s), Walberg, Moos (from the 1950s) and Fraser, Fisher (from the 1960s to 70s).
Using the Copernic software that was downloaded from http://www.copernic.com/, we were able to conduct a comprehensive search on Murray on the internet.
Background Studies on Murray
Henry A. Murray (1893 - 1988) was an American psychologist. He was one of the most important pioneers who introduced psychoanalysis into American academic psychology.
Drawing influences from Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung, he was most noted for developing the "Need-Press" personality theory and developing the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) with the help of Christiana Morgan. His TAT test was a means of drawing forth from people by means of words and stories important aspects of personality that an individual could or would not volunteer. The TAT test was designed to be both a diagnostic tool and a research tool, and has contemporary applications even to-date.
His most famous single book, which was the outcome of collaborating with others at his Psychological Clinic, was Explorations in Personality (1938). He also co-edited, with the Harvard anthropologist Clyde Kluckhohn, an influential book of readings, Personality in Nature, Culture, and Society (1948).
Murray's identification of core psychological needs (Murray's Psychogenic Needs), including Achievement, Affiliation and Power (1938) provided the theoretical basis for the later research of David McClelland and underpins development of competency-based models of management effectiveness (Richard Boyatzis), Maslow's Hiearchy of Needs, and ideas relating to Positive Psychology.
*Note:
Psychogenic: originating in the mind or in mental or emotional conflict (according to the online Merriam-Webster dictionary at http://www.m-w.com)
Check out Andrew, Geraldine, Sushiliah and Selina's blog for a more comprehensive writeup on Murray's theories.
We were introduced to the background of prior research in LE, and were exposed to the works of Murray, Lewin, Leary (from the 1930s), Walberg, Moos (from the 1950s) and Fraser, Fisher (from the 1960s to 70s).
Using the Copernic software that was downloaded from http://www.copernic.com/, we were able to conduct a comprehensive search on Murray on the internet.
Background Studies on Murray
Henry A. Murray (1893 - 1988) was an American psychologist. He was one of the most important pioneers who introduced psychoanalysis into American academic psychology.
Drawing influences from Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung, he was most noted for developing the "Need-Press" personality theory and developing the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) with the help of Christiana Morgan. His TAT test was a means of drawing forth from people by means of words and stories important aspects of personality that an individual could or would not volunteer. The TAT test was designed to be both a diagnostic tool and a research tool, and has contemporary applications even to-date.
His most famous single book, which was the outcome of collaborating with others at his Psychological Clinic, was Explorations in Personality (1938). He also co-edited, with the Harvard anthropologist Clyde Kluckhohn, an influential book of readings, Personality in Nature, Culture, and Society (1948).
Murray's identification of core psychological needs (Murray's Psychogenic Needs), including Achievement, Affiliation and Power (1938) provided the theoretical basis for the later research of David McClelland and underpins development of competency-based models of management effectiveness (Richard Boyatzis), Maslow's Hiearchy of Needs, and ideas relating to Positive Psychology.
*Note:
Psychogenic: originating in the mind or in mental or emotional conflict (according to the online Merriam-Webster dictionary at http://www.m-w.com)
Check out Andrew, Geraldine, Sushiliah and Selina's blog for a more comprehensive writeup on Murray's theories.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Reflection on New Learning Environments and Constructivism: The Students' Perspective
As a teacher teaching Biology and Chemistry, I had learnt about the Constructivist Theory from my PGDE training in NIE. This approach is widely employed in the teaching of the sciences whereby the learner actively constructs his own knowledge, and as a result is able to better "own" the knowledge rather than just being "spoon-fed". I believe that it is based on this rationale that the study in this reading was proposed -- evaluating whether the students perceived PBL as more constructivist compared to that of a conventional lecture-based environment.
I am not sure what exactly constitutes a "New Learning Environment" in this study. The authors have mentioned constructivism and related them to pedagogies such as project-based, case-based and problem based learning. What kind of "old" learning environments are they trying to compare NLE against? Is the transition from "old" LE to NLE subtle or abrupt?
In my opinion, the instructor's intentionality is of utmost importance. He should be acutely aware of the learner's needs and how prepared they are to accept learning in a style the learner is not used to. He should also make his expectations clear -- what would be the desired outcome of a (successful) PBL session in order for it to be meaningful?
As a student, I learnt different subjects in different ways, depending on the level of mastery I had. At secondary school level, I had learnt most of my subjects the 'traditional' way but our imaginations were still fired as our teachers made use of effective questioning techniques in the classroom settings. Rather, we were caught off guard when one day the teacher deviated from her usually mode of delivery and got us to work in groups for a particular piece of work without stating her intentionality and expectations of learning outcomes. Although the process was enjoyable, we did not take the lesson very seriously and had even thought that the teacher could afford to do groupwork with us because it was not an important chapter to learn. The learning could have been more effective if some time was spent for us to reflect on what we had
learnt from one another or about the subject matter during the discussion or brain-storming session.
It is heartening to note that the authors conclude the study with a recommendation to take into consideration a blend of different learning experiences in concocting NLE, not just PBL per se. It would definitely render the learning process more holistic and exciting.
I am not sure what exactly constitutes a "New Learning Environment" in this study. The authors have mentioned constructivism and related them to pedagogies such as project-based, case-based and problem based learning. What kind of "old" learning environments are they trying to compare NLE against? Is the transition from "old" LE to NLE subtle or abrupt?
In my opinion, the instructor's intentionality is of utmost importance. He should be acutely aware of the learner's needs and how prepared they are to accept learning in a style the learner is not used to. He should also make his expectations clear -- what would be the desired outcome of a (successful) PBL session in order for it to be meaningful?
As a student, I learnt different subjects in different ways, depending on the level of mastery I had. At secondary school level, I had learnt most of my subjects the 'traditional' way but our imaginations were still fired as our teachers made use of effective questioning techniques in the classroom settings. Rather, we were caught off guard when one day the teacher deviated from her usually mode of delivery and got us to work in groups for a particular piece of work without stating her intentionality and expectations of learning outcomes. Although the process was enjoyable, we did not take the lesson very seriously and had even thought that the teacher could afford to do groupwork with us because it was not an important chapter to learn. The learning could have been more effective if some time was spent for us to reflect on what we had
learnt from one another or about the subject matter during the discussion or brain-storming session.
It is heartening to note that the authors conclude the study with a recommendation to take into consideration a blend of different learning experiences in concocting NLE, not just PBL per se. It would definitely render the learning process more holistic and exciting.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Something to share...
Check out www.teachers.tv
Apparently they've got many educational videos. You can use them for lessons!
You'd need to sign up to use the videos tho. ;)
Apparently they've got many educational videos. You can use them for lessons!
You'd need to sign up to use the videos tho. ;)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)