TITULO VII - PROTECCIÓN DE ANIMALES Y REGULACIÓN DE SU TENENCIA CAPITULO 1 - NORMAS GENERALES
CAPÍTULO 6 ESPECIES NO AUTÓCTONAS Artículo 285 - Documentación exigible
Before the means for the Year 1, Year 2, Year 3 and Professionals (coded as 1, 2, 3, and 4 respectively in SPSS) were compared, the statistical descriptives and the tests for homogeneity of variances were determined using SPSS. Levene’s test for homogeneity of variances was then carried out and the results can be found in Appendix A (Table A.1). In short, variances of the groups were found to be significantly different at the p<.05 level, except for SSSELFR1 (F(3,2099)=1.78, p=0.16), SELFTEST (F(3,2099)=1.60, p=0.19), VOCATION (F(3,2099)=0.74, p=0.53), and CONSTRUC (F(3,2099)=0.85, p=0.47).
Based on the above analysis, the assumption of homogeneity of variances for the ANOVA method was violated and the F statistics calculated may not be useful for most of the ILS subscales. An alternative analysis was then sought using the Welch and Brown-Forsythe tests, both of which determined the equality of group means without assuming homogeneity of variance. The Welch test adjusts the denominator of the F ratio so it has the same expectation as the numerator when the null hypothesis is true, despite the heterogeneity of within-group variance. The Brown-Forsythe test adjusts each group’s contribution to the between-group variation by a weight related to its within-group variation; thus explicitly adjusting for heterogeneity of variance. Both these methods are more robust than the ANOVA method
105
under the circumstances with good control of Type I errors (Tomarken & Serlin, 1986).
The Welch test indicated that all sub-scales were determined to have statistically significant differences between group means at the p<.05 level, except for LACKREG (F(3,1.22)=1.28, p=0.30), SELFTEST (F(3,593.55)=1.16, p=0.33) and INTAKE (F(3,584.69)=1.55, p=0.20). The Brown-Forsythe test did not change the significance and direction of the results. The detailed results can be found in Appendix A (Table A.2).
Post-Hoc analysis was then carried out to further examine the differences using the Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) test and Tamhane’s test. Tamhane’s post hoc test adjusts for unequal variances and sample sizes in the groups and is more robust over Tukey’s HSD in this context. The results, however, were very similar except for SSEXTER1 where the mean difference between the Year 1 and Year 3 groups was determined to be statistically significant at the p<.05 level for Tukey’s HSD but not for Tamhane’s test.
The Partial Eta Squared (2) values were also calculated for all the independent variables using the General Linear Model (GLM) Univariate procedure in SPSS as an estimate of the effect size for each of the variables respectively. The results are reported in Table A.3 of Appendix A. Kittler, Menard & Phillips (2007) and Barnette (2006) interpreted 2 values of 0.01, 0.06 and 0.14 as small, medium and large effects respectively. Using this as a reference, the effect sizes in this study were found to be small, between 0.002 to 0.042. A summary of the means, standard deviations, and indication of significant differences between groups for each subscale of the ILS using data from the above analyses is presented in the following sections.
106
4.1.2.1 Domain I: Processing Strategies
(a) Deep Processing: Relating & structuring (SSDEEP1) and Critical Processing (SSDEEP2)
Table 4.2
Mean ratings for the Relating & Structuring and Critical Processing ILS scale items, and standard deviation (in parenthesis) compared across the four groups. Means not sharing common subscripts are significantly different from each other.
ILS Scale Item Code Year 1 (N=638) Year 2 (N=616) Year 3 (N=705) Professionals (N=140) Relating & Structuring SSDEEP1 2.93a (0.70) 2.70b (0.62) 2.83a (0.69) 2.76ab (0.67) Critical Processing SSDEEP2 2.60a (0.84) 2.56ab (0.85) 2.51ab (0.78) 2.39b (0.73)
There were significant differences between the student groups for Relating & Structuring (F(3,591.52)=12.56, p<.001). Post-hoc comparisons using Tamhane’s method revealed that Year 2 students used less relating and structuring in their processing strategy compared to Year 1 students and Year 3 students. As for Critical Processing, there were significant differences found between the student groups (F(3,602.60)=3.37, p<0.05). Post-hoc analysis showed that Year 1 students used the critical processing strategy more than Professional students.
(b) Stepwise Processing: Memorising & Rehearsing (SSTEP1) and Analysing (SSTEP2)
Table 4.3
Mean ratings for the Memorising & Rehearsing and Analysing ILS scale items, and standard deviation (in parenthesis) compared across the four groups. Means not sharing common subscripts are significantly different from each other.
ILS Scale Item Code Year 1 (N=638) Year 2 (N=616) Year 3 (N=705) Professionals (N=140) Memorising & Rehearsing SSSTEP1 3.19a (0.76) 3.02b (0.65) 3.29a (0.71) 2.99b (0.66) Analysing SSSTEP2 2.95ab (0.71) 2.86a (0.63) 2.96b (0.69) 2.59c (0.64)
107
There were significant differences for memorising & Rehearsing found between the student groups (F(3,597.69)=21.57, p<.001). Year 1 and Year 3 students had the highest mean score for memorizing and rehearsing that was significantly higher compared to Year 2 and Professional students.
As for Analysing, there were significant differences found between the student groups (F(3,596.52)=14.252, p<.001). Comparison using post-hoc analysis found that the Professional students had significantly the lowest mean score for analyzing as a strategy among the four groups. In addition, Year 2 students scored less for this construct compared to Year 3 students.
(c) Concrete processing - CONCRETE
Table 4.4
Mean ratings for the Concrete Processing ILS scale item, and standard deviation (in parenthesis) compared across the four groups. Means not sharing common subscripts are significantly different from each other.
ILS Scale Item Code Year 1 (N=638) Year 2 (N=616) Year 3 (N=705) Professionals (N=140) Concrete Processing CONCRETE 2.93ac (0.74) 2.76b (0.69) 2.84ab (0.72) 3.02c (0.73)
There were significant differences found between the student groups (F(3, 588.39)=8.20, p<.001). Opposite of what was seen for the analysing strategy, the Professionals group had the highest mean score for concrete processing, showing significantly higher preference for this strategy than Year 2 and Year 3 students. Although they scored higher than Year 1 students, the difference was not significantly higher.
108
Summary
Among all the Processing Strategies, Year 1, Year 2 and Year 3 students scored generally higher means for memorising & rehearsing which highlight their preference for rote learning. The Professionals group scored the highest for concrete processing among the other Processing Strategies with statistical significance observed. It was not surprising that the Professionals would prefer to learn by concretising and associating what they have learnt to their own work experience, and seeking ways to apply the knowledge gained. However, being more matured and experienced learners I expected them to also use more Deep Processing techniques, but that was not evident from the results. In general, there did not appear to be any significant relation between year of study and processing strategies. This will be investigated further later.
4.1.2.2 Domain II: Regulation Strategies
(d) Self-Regulation: Learning Processes & Results (SSSELFR1) and Learning Content (SSSELFR2)
Table 4.5
Mean ratings for the Learning Processes & Results and Learning Content ILS scale items, and standard deviation (in parenthesis) compared across the four groups. Means not sharing common subscripts are significantly different from each other.
ILS Scale Item Code Year 1 (N=638) Year 2 (N=616) Year 3 (N=705) Professionals (N=140) Learning Processes & Results SSSELFR1 2.89a (0.74) 2.77b (0.68) 2.97a (0.71) 2.70b (0.71) Learning Content SSSELFR2 2.61a (0.93) 2.46b (0.73) 2.44b (0.75) 2.38b (0.78)
There were significant differences for Learning Processes & Results found between the student groups (F(3, 590.10)=11.70, p<.001). The Year 3
109
group showed significant preference for this construct compared to Year 2 and Professional students. While the Year 1 group mean score was lower than the Year 3 group (but not statistically significant), it was significantly higher than the Year 2 and Professional groups.
There were significant differences found for Learning Content between the student groups (F(3, 590.29)=5.891, p<.05). Year 1 students scored significantly higher for this construct over all other groups.
(e) External Regulation: Learning Processes (SSEXTER1) and Learning Results (SSEXTER2)
Table 4.6
Mean ratings for the External regulation of learning Processes and learning Results ILS scale items, and standard deviation (in parenthesis) compared across the four groups. Means not sharing common subscripts are significantly different from each other.
ILS Scale Item Code Year 1 (N=638) Year 2 (N=616) Year 3 (N=705) Professionals (N=140) Learning Processes SSEXTER1 3.07ac (0.72) 3.04a (0.66) 3.18c (0.66) 2.73b (0.59) Learning Results SSEXTER2 3.18a (0.75) 3.00bc (0.67) 3.09ab (0.73) 2.87c (0.67)
There were significant differences of means found for External Regulation of Learning Processes between the student groups (F(3, 605.71)=20.44, p<.001). The Year 3 group scored significantly higher for external regulation of learning processes compared to the Year 2 and Professionals groups. The Professional students, in fact, scored significantly lower than all the groups.
As for External Regulation of Learning Results there were also significant differences found in the means between the student groups (F(3, 598.61)=10.94, p<.001). Again the Professional students scored the lowest
110
mean for this strategy, showing significantly lower scores compared to Year 1 and Year 3 students. The Year 1 students, scored significantly higher than for Year 2 and Professional students.
(f) Lack of regulation - LACKREG
Table 4.7
Mean ratings for the Lack of Regulation ILS scale item, and standard deviation (in parenthesis) compared across the four groups. Means not sharing common subscripts are significantly different from each other.
ILS Scale Item Code Year 1 (N=638) Year 2 (N=616) Year 3 (N=705) Professionals (N=140) Lack of Regulation LACKREG 2.74a (0.76) 2.69a (0.66) 2.73a (0.62) 2.65a (0.59)
There were no significant differences found between the four groups of students at the p<.05 level.
Summary
Year 1 students scored the highest among the rest for Self-Regulation of Learning Content. No significant increase in self-regulation nor external regulation strategies were reported at the later years. Interestingly the Professionals group reported generally low scores (though not significantly lower) for both the Self-Regulation and External Regulation constructs.
111
4.1.2.3 Domain III: Learning Orientations (g) Personally interested – INTEREST
Table 4.8
Mean ratings for the Personally Interested ILS scale item, and standard deviation (in parenthesis) compared across the four groups. Means not sharing common subscripts are significantly different from each other.
ILS Scale Item Code Year 1 (N=638) Year 2 (N=616) Year 3 (N=705) Professionals (N=140) Personally Interested INTEREST 3.45a (0.56) 3.27b (0.62) 3.30b (0.60) 3.15b (0.66)
There were significant differences found between the student groups (F(3, 580.70)=15.68, p<.001). The Year 1 students scored significantly higher than all the other groups, indicating strong personal interest in their choice of studies.
(h) Certificate directed – CERTIFIC
Table 4.9
Mean ratings for the Certificate Oriented ILS scale item, and standard deviation (in parenthesis) compared across the four groups. Means not sharing common subscripts are significantly different from each other.
ILS Scale Item Code Year 1 (N=638) Year 2 (N=616) Year 3 (N=705) Professionals (N=140) Certificate Oriented CERTIFIC 3.61a (0.76) 3.54ab (0.67) 3.59a (0.65) 3.40b (0.66)
There were significant differences found between the student groups (F(3, 594.50)=4.37, p<.05). The Professional students scored the lowest among all the groups with significant differences compared to the Year 1 and Year 3 students in their view of acquiring a certificate as the goal for learning.
112
(i) Self-test directed – SELFTEST
Table 4.10
Mean ratings for the Self-Test Oriented ILS scale item, and standard deviation (in parenthesis) compared across the four groups. Means not sharing common subscripts are significantly different from each other.
ILS Scale Item Code Year 1 (N=638) Year 2 (N=616) Year 3 (N=705) Professionals (N=140) Self-Test Oriented SELFTEST 3.78a (0.79) 3.73a (0.74) 3.70a (0.74) 3.75a (0.733)
There were no significant differences found between the four groups of students at the p<.05 level. It was interesting to note that the mean scores for the self-test directed subscale for all groups were among the highest when compared with other subscales.
(j) Vocation directed – VOCATION
Table 4.11
Mean ratings for the Vocation Oriented ILS scale item, and standard deviation (in parenthesis) compared across the four groups. Means not sharing common subscripts are significantly different from each other.
ILS Scale Item Code Year 1 (N=638) Year 2 (N=616) Year 3 (N=705) Professionals (N=140) Vocation Oriented VOCATION 3.65a (0.72) 3.65a (0.68) 3.67a (0.70) 3.92b (0.63)
There were significant differences found between the student groups (F(3, 602.53)=7.32, p<.001). The Professional students scored significantly higher than all the other groups, indicating the importance of acquiring professional skills as a goal for their studies.
113
(k) Ambivalent - AMBIVALE
Table 4.12
Mean ratings for the Ambivalent ILS scale item, and standard deviation (in parenthesis) compared across the four groups. Means not sharing common subscripts are significantly different from each other.
ILS Scale Item Code Year 1 (N=638) Year 2 (N=616) Year 3 (N=705) Professionals (N=140) Ambivalent AMBIVALE 3.00a (0.77) 3.15b (0.77) 3.06ab (0.66) 2.49c (0.77)
There were significant differences found between the student groups (F(3, 581.86)=27.88, p<.001). Year 2 students scored highest among the other groups and were significantly more ambivalent in their attitude towards their studies compared to the Year 1 and Professional students. The Professionals' scores for ambivalence were significantly the lowest among all the groups.
Summary
Looking at Learning Orientations as a domain, it appears that Year 1 students were the most directed by their interest in Engineering, and the goal to attain their Diplomas. Somehow, Year 2 students appear to have lost their way and have become more ambivalent. The Professionals group, on the other hand, are significantly less ambivalent than all the other students, and are clearly more directed by their vocational goals, that is, to gain the knowledge and skills to enhance their ability to perform better in their current jobs, or perhaps to prepare themselves for a promotion or a career switch. However, it was interesting that they also reported low mean scores for the personal interest and certificate directed subscales. All groups generally reported high mean scores for self-test directed with no significant differences between groups. This could indicate that generally, students were
114
motivated by the opportunity to prove to themselves and others that they were capable of successfully completing a programme in higher education.
4.1.2.4 Domain IV: Mental models of learning (l) Construction of knowledge - CONSTRUCT
Table 4.13
Mean ratings for the Construction of Knowledge ILS scale item, and standard deviation (in parenthesis) compared across the four groups. Means not sharing common subscripts are significantly different from each other.
ILS Scale Item Code Year 1 (N=638) Year 2 (N=616) Year 3 (N=705) Professionals (N=140) Construction of Knowledge CONSTRUC 3.55a (0.59) 3.44b (0.60) 3.42b (0.63) 3.56ab (0.57)
There were significant differences found between the student groups (F(3, 597.58)=6.89, p<.001). Year 1 students scored significantly higher compared to Year 2 and Year 3 students in this conception of learning. Professional students did have a high mean score but not statistically higher than any group.
(m) Intake of knowledge - INTAKE
Table 4.14
Mean ratings for the Intake of Knowledge ILS scale item, and standard deviation (in parenthesis) compared across the four groups. Means not sharing common subscripts are significantly different from each other.
ILS Scale Item Code Year 1 (N=638) Year 2 (N=616) Year 3 (N=705) Professionals (N=140) Intake of Knowledge INTAKE 3.71a (0.65) 3.77a (0.61) 3.77a (0.58) 3.70a (0.64)
There were no significant differences found between the four groups of students at the p<0.05 level, however, like the self-test directed subscale, this construct also had generally higher means compared with the others.
115
This could indicate that generally, the students' learning conception was to take in knowledge mainly through memorising and reproduction, and they relied on their instructors to tell them what needs to be studied.
(n) Use of knowledge – USEKNOW
Table 4.15
Mean ratings for the Use of Knowledge ILS scale item, and standard deviation (in parenthesis) compared across the four groups. Means not sharing common subscripts are significantly different from each other.
ILS Scale Item Code Year 1 (N=638) Year 2 (N=616) Year 3 (N=705) Professionals (N=140) Use of Knowledge USEKNOW 3.71a (0.67) 3.68a (0.55) 3.68a (0.64) 3.89b (0.54)
There were significant differences found between the student groups (F(3, 604.59)=6.119, p<.001). The Professional students scored significantly higher than all the other groups indicating that they hold a stronger view of learning as a means to acquire knowledge that can be applied in their respective vocations.
(o) Stimulating education – STIMED
Table 4.16
Mean ratings for the Stimulating Education scale item, and standard deviation (in parenthesis) compared across the four groups. Means not sharing common subscripts are significantly different from each other.
ILS Scale Item Code Year 1 (N=638) Year 2 (N=616) Year 3 (N=705) Professionals (N=140) Stimulating Education STIMED 3.54a (0.63) 3.43b (0.61) 3.41b (0.61) 3.40ab (0.60)
There were significant differences found between the student groups (F(3, 592.89)=5.86, p<.05). Year 1 students scored significantly the highest mean compared to Year 2 and Year 3 students suggesting a higher
116
dependence on teachers to stimulate learning. The Professional group scored the lowest mean, but not statistically significant compared to the others at the p<0.05 level. However, statistical significance could be found at the p<.1 level.
(p) Co-operation - COOPER
Table 4.17
Mean ratings for the Cooperative Learning ILS scale item, and standard deviation (in parenthesis) compared across the four groups. Means not sharing common subscripts are significantly different from each other.
ILS Scale Item Code Year 1 (N=638) Year 2 (N=616) Year 3 (N=705) Professionals (N=140) Cooperative Learning COOPER 3.46ab (0.84) 3.40a (0.79) 3.57b (0.71) 3.20c (0.74)
There were significant differences found between the student groups (F(3, 593.03)=11.87, p<.001). The Professional students scored significantly lower than all the other groups indicating their lower dependence on cooperation with fellow students and sharing the task of learning with them. Year 3 students scored the highest mean, with statistical significance found when compared to Year 2 and Professional groups.
Summary
For the Mental Models of Learning domain, Year 1 students and the Professionals held stronger views that learning involved constructing one's own knowledge and insights more than the other groups.
Year 3 students attached more value to learning in cooperation with fellow students and sharing the task of learning with them compared with Year 1 and Year 2 students, whereas the Professionals relied the least on this concept of learning. To the Professionals, their conception of learning is
117
understandably more pragmatic, holding the view that knowledge gained is for the purpose of applying to their respective vocations. It was observed that they scored higher in this than any other construct in this domain. All groups generally reported higher mean scores for the Intake of Knowledge subscale compared to other subscales (other than self-test directed). This indicated that students generally expected the instructor to be quite specific in telling the class the scope of what would be tested in all their assessments, and to provide sufficient practice through questions, tutorials, and even past year papers.