MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1991620613 · doi:10.1111/j.1949-3606.2007.tb00064.x

Learning Styles in Relation to Academic Performance in Middle School Mathematics

2007· article· en· W1991620613 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Eisa M. Al‐Balhan

Notice bibliographique

RevueDigest of Middle East Studies · 2007
Typearticle
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueLearning Styles and Cognitive Differences
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMathematics educationStyle (visual arts)Quarter (Canadian coin)Variety (cybernetics)PsychologyLearning stylesComputer scienceGeographyArtificial intelligence

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Research was conducted with middle‐school Kuwaiti children to assess the effectiveness of student learning styles in predicting students' academic performance in Mathematics. A group of middle school students who had received first quarter grades and enrolled in an after‐school tutoring program were studied, with half of the students in a traditional tutoring program and the other half in a Markova learning style‐tutoring program. Results show that the students in the experimental group (mean = 45.91), whose learning styles were accommodated for, performed better than the students in the control group who studied using the traditional method (mean = 43.80) of teaching. Gender, type of school attended, and area in which the students lived were all analyzed within the experimental group. The experimental group results show that the highest‐grade improvement in Mathematics was found to be predominately male students attending private institutions, and living in the urban areas of Kuwait. Students learn in a variety of ways, and their ability to attain this information also varies. A student's capacity to learn is impacted by the teacher's style of conveying information. Unfortunately, little attention has been given to how children think (Markova, 1992). Often, it is assumed that students' minds operate in the same way as the teacher's does. So much of student failure in school comes directly out of the larger failure to stimulate all those areas in the children's brains, stimulation which could open up their minds in so many ways (Markova, 1992). Student's academic performance is a matter of concern to educators, parents, and students themselves. The ways in which an individual characteristically acquires, retains, and retrieves information are collectively referred to as his or her learning style (Felder and Henriques, 1995). Unfortunately, the manner in which children acquire the information to perform well academically is too often ignored. Considerable research has examined the relationship between students' learning styles and their academic performance (Witkin, 1973; Gregorc, 1979; Claxton and Murrell, 1987; Brunner and Majewski, 1990; Schroeder, 1993; Klavas, 1993). These studies have consistently found that when learning styles were considered in the teaching process, academic performance increased. Schroeder states that accommodating the variations in learning styles could improve curricula and the teaching process (1993). The results of a study by Dunn et al. (1995) suggested that students whose learning styles are accommodated would be expected to achieve 75% of a standard deviation higher than students for whose learning style had not been accommodated. Many researchers have reported that students often classified as poor achievers, learning disabled, at‐risk youth, or dropouts were able to improve their academic performance when instruction was redesigned to respond to their particular learning style preferences (Stone, 1992; Perrin, 1990; Elliot, 1991; Andrews, 1990). Children suffer deeply when their natural way of thinking, of absorbing and processing information, of creating and expressing is criticized, mocked, or ignored (Markova, 1992). However, learning efficiently empowers children to gain confidence since many believe they have learned a skill only after they can perform it easily. Markova acknowledges that many approaches to understanding individual differences include something about the fact that most of us have one sense we are most comfortable using in the learning process. Understanding these patterns of processing information is crucial to finding the most effective ways to educate our children. Markova has identified six patterns of personal thinking, which are different combinations of the perceptual kinesthetic (K), auditory (A), and visual (V) channels. He posits that information is first received by the conscious mind, sorted by the unconscious mind and finally integrated by the subconscious mind (Markova, 1992). The six different combinations (KAV, KVA, AVK, AKV, VKA, and VAK) are referred to as personal thinking patterns and determine the most comfortable and effective way for each learner to learn.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,010
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,019

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0000,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,095
Tête enseignante GPT0,340
Écart entre enseignants0,245 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations7
Publié2007
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueDigest of Middle East StudiesMême sujetLearning Styles and Cognitive DifferencesTravaux en français237 207