Showing papers by "Stephen E. Newstead published in 1992"

A study of two "quick-and-easy" methods of assessing individual differences in student learning.

Abstract: A study is reported which examined the reliability and validity of two measures of individual differences in learning, a short form of the Approaches to Studying Inventory (Entwistle and Ramsden, 1983) and the Learning Style Inventory (Kolb, 1976). Both of these are short and easy to administer, making them attractive for use in the classroom. The Approaches to Studying Inventory was found to be a potentially useful measure: the predicted factors emerged, the scales were moderately reliable and those students adopting a deep approach to learning were more likely to be successful in their exams. The Learning Style Inventory, on the other hand, was relatively unreliable and the underlying factor structure did not correspond to what was predicted; there was, however, a correlation between scores on the active/passive dimension and academic success. It is concluded that the short form of the Approaches to Studying Inventory has some potential in assessing the learning styles of students, but that further refinement is required before it is adopted for general use.

Thinking about THOG: Sources of error in a deductive reasoning problem

Abstract: Three experiments are reported which investigated performance on a number of variants of the THOG problem. Collectively, these experiments indicated that subjects are more accurate (a) when the problem is phrased in a way that clearly separates the properties of the positive instance provided from the properties about which hypotheses must be generated; and (b) when subjects are required to generate hypotheses about what might be the chosen properties. It is suggested that people have little difficulty in carrying out the various thought processes that are required to reach the correct solution to the standard THOG problem, but that it is beyond most people to carry out all of these processes simultaneously.