Gender Differences In The Learning Preferences Of Engineering Students
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract NOTE: The first page of text has been automatically extracted and included below in lieu of an abstract Gender Differences in the Learning Preferences of Engineering Students P.A. Rosati The University of Western Ontario Abstract The results are compared of the responses of female and male engineering students to an Index of Learning Styles. This self-report forced-choice instrument classifies the learning preferences of the respondents on four scales; Active/Reflective, Sensing/Intuition, Visual/Verbal and Sequential/Global. Both male and female students showed a clear preference for Active, Sensing, Visual, Sequential learning. However, the female students’ learning preferences were significantly more Reflective, Verbal and Sequential than the males’. The teaching and presentation of most engineering courses would be more effective for the majority of students if they contained elements which appealed to all learning styles, which, these results suggest would require them to incorporate and emphasise more Active, Sensing, Visual and Global components. 1. Introduction Student learning styles are frequently modelled along dichotomous dimensions such as active/reflective, right-brained/left-brained or sensing/intuition. These dimensions, well described in the literature’, represent continuous scales and an individual student might report his preference for one pole as strong or weak. Teaching approaches that address a variety of learning styles are more likely to be effective than those that emphasise fewer or perhaps only one style. The Index of Learning Styles (ILS) is an instrument created and currently being developed2*3v4 by Soloman and Felder to assess positions on four of these learning style dimensions. The ILS is the first draft of a research instrument, as yet unvalidated, which consists of twenty- eight forced-choice questions and which classifies the student’s responses on the four scales: active/reflective, sensing/intuition, visual/verbal and sequential/global. The active/reflective scale derives from Kolb’s learning sty@ model and is closely related to Jung’s extravert/introvert dimension as described by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)6. The sensing/intuition ILS scale also parallels the similar MBTI dimension and attempts to classify for the educational preference what the MBTI does for the personality preference. The results described in this paper are the ILS responses from two groups of engineering students from The University of Western Ontario (UWO). The first-year group of students (408 males and 87 females) completed the ILS at the beginning of their program in October (1992 and 1993) and the senior students (284 males and 48 females, most of them in their fourth year) completed the ILS in March (1994, 1995 and 1996) towards the end of their
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.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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