Recently, more students have entered Dutch higher education. This is a consequence of the possibility to offer students to enter higher education, with a certificate from senior secondary education (SSVE). In earlier days most students in higher education had passed senior general secondary education (SGSE), or even pre-university education. It is to be expected that these 'new' students approach learning in a different way compared to the 'traditional' students in higher education. The goal of this study was to examine the possible differences between the two groups of students mentioned, and to gain insights in the role possible differences play in the way the two groups of students approach learning. Students' personality characteristics, regulation strategies, learning conceptions and motivational orientations were studied in relation to study approaches. It was assumed that patterns of relations between the variables mentioned would be different for the two groups of students. More specifically, it was expected to find stronger and more crystallised relations between variables within the group of SSVE-students. Indeed, when entering Higer Education, SSVE students scored higher than SGSE students on the personality variables autonomy and conscientiousness; as to their personal orientations on learning and instruction they were more self-test oriented and they scored higher on concrete processing and construction of knowledge. However, the strength and direction of the relations between the variables are the same for both groups. Our findings increase insights into relations between students' personalities and their approaches to learning when entering higher education; this concerns two groups of students from different educational backgrounds. Practically this implies that intake assessments considering personality and self-knowledge might help teachers, coaches and policy makers in advising students how to appraoch learning, when entering higher education. Copyright Elsevier Inc.
LINK
This study focuses on students’ approaches to learning, particularly in innovative learning environments. A person-oriented research perspective was chosen to search for nuances and details that add to existing knowledge on secondary students’ learning. The relation between students’ goal orientations, learning strategies, and different learning environments was investigated via questionnaires and interviews. The questionnaire study revealed four profiles of 673 students’ (meta-)cognitive learning strategies. Differences in student learning were found between students of an innovative school and students of regular schools, indicating that learning strategies are elicited by the learning environments students are confronted with. The interview study with 20 students from the innovative school illustrated their learning in learning environments typical for this school. Results revealed how students from different profiles differed in their goal orientations and learning strategies and that these differences were related to students’ need for teacher support when learning. The results of this study provide qualitative and quantitative insight in (enhancing) secondary students’ learning, doing justice to the learners as persons and individual differences.
LINK
Learning objects are bits of learning content. They may be reused 'as is' (simple reuse) or first be adapted to a learner's particular needs (flexible reuse). Reuse matters because it lowers the development costs of learning objects, flexible reuse matters because it allows one to address learners' needs in an affordable way. Flexible reuse is particularly important in the knowledge economy, where learners not only have very spefic demands but often also need to pay for their own further education. The technical problems to simple and flexible are rapidly being resolved in various learning technology standardisation bodies. This may suggest that a learning object economy, in which learning objects are freely exchanged, updated and adapted, is about to emerge. Such a belief, however, ignores the significant psychological, social and organizational barriers to reuse that still abound. An inventory of these problems is made and possible ways to overcome them are discussed.
DOCUMENT
