NIVELES DE VOLTAJE Y NIVELES DE CARGA EN

There were no significant differences between PSUs and non-PSUs approaches to studying on PS for Y2s. There were also no significant correlations between students approaches to studying and their attendance at PS for Y2s. However, PSUs did have higher mean reproducing scores and lower mean meaning orientated scores than non- PSUs. There was also a non-significant positive correlations between reproducing orientated scores and attendance at PS, and non-significant negative correlations between meaning orientated scores and attendance at PS. Given the PSUs’ higher levels o f previous achievement, this appears counter-intuitive. The best explanation for this is that the experience of studying ‘A ’ levels encourages students to adopt a more reproducing approach to learning. The PS sessions focused on answering exam questions because success in ‘A’ levels is based upon students ability to answer questions, the formats o f which are repeated over the years. This may make the learning of how to tackle exam questions more important than understanding the course material. I show in Section 6.3.1, that at end of the academic year the PSUs on Y l adopt less meaning orientated approaches to learning, and illustrate how PS was instrumental in them becoming more strategic learners. It appears likely that the Y2 students with the highest levels of previous achievement had already been through this process without the aid of PS.

5.5.4 Conclusion o f whether students with particular approaches to studying use PS?

It cannot be concluded that the students who attended the PS for Y ls or Y2s sessions had particular approaches to studying. However, there were interesting differences between Y ls and Y2s. The mean scores of Y l PSUs and non-PSUs, as well as the correlations between approaches to studying and attendance at PS for Y ls, indicated that the students who attended PS for Y ls had more meaning orientated approaches to studying. However, the data on the Y2s suggested a relationship between attendance

at PS and more reproducing orientated approaches to learning. Whilst none of these differences are significant, it does seems that there are two probable reasons for these differences that are related. First, the structure of ‘A ’ level exams discourage a meaning approach to studying, with the main test for students being the ability to answer questions the formats of which are repeated over the years. Second, the more formal style of the PS for Y2s would have appealed to students with more reproducing approaches to studying, who seek to have more direction from others in their learning. These reasons are supported by the evidence in Section 6.3.1 that PSUs on Yl become significantly less meaning orientated in their learning having attended PS. It is also supported by the correlations between students’ performance in their end of year exams. Tables 5.14 and 5.15 show that again although for the Y ls the correlations between meaning orientated score and exam performance is positive, for the Y2s it is negative. Whilst for the correlations between reproducing orientations and performance in the end of year exams are negative for Y ls and positive Y2s. Although most of these differences are not significant, the difference between the correlations for Y l and Y2s are striking. They suggest that higher achieving students become more reproducing orientated, and less meaning orientated, in their studies over the time they are studying ‘A ’ level Science.

C hem istry P rom otional Exam P u re M aths & S ta ts P ro m o tio n al Exam Meaning Orientated Score Correlation Coefficient .332* .232 Significance .030 .149 N 33 22

Reproducing Correlation Coefficient -.284 -1.99

Orientated Score Significance .055 .187

N 33 22

* Correlation is significant at the .05 level (1 tailed)

Table 5.14 Spearman’s Rho Correlations between Meaning Orientated and Reproducing Orientated Scores and Performance in Promotional Exams for Y1s.

C hem istry ‘A* level G rade

B iology ‘A’ level G rad e Meaning Orientated Score Correlation Coefficient -.134 -.147

Significance .281 .275

N 21 19

Reproducing Orientated Correlation Coefficient .270 .343

Score Significance .118 .075

N 21 19

Table 5.15 Spearman’s Rho Correlations between Meaning Orientated and Reproducing Orientated Scores and ‘A’ level Grades for Y2s.

5.6 Did s t u d e n ts w h o u s e d PS p erfo rm b e tte r a c a d e m ic a lly

th a n s tu d e n ts w h o did n o t u s e P S ?

In this section I demonstrate that on both PS schemes, students who use PS perform better academically than students who do not use PS. I show that the PSUs and the PSers both felt that the PSUs had gained from their involvement in PS. I demonstrate that on both schemes PSUs perform significantly better than non-PSUs, and that the more PS students attended the better their academic performance. I also show that even when students’ levels o f previous achievement are controlled for there are still correlations between attendance at PS and students’ final marks. For PS for Y ls, students of all levels of previous achievement gained the more they attended PS. On PS for Y2, it was students in the top 75% of previous achievement who benefited. This is not unexpected given that there were only two PSUs in the bottom 25% of students as measured by previous academic achievement. I conclude that the evidence suggests that students with all levels of previous achievement benefited from PS. I did not control for students approaches to studying. This is for two reasons. First, I have shown that there was no evidence to suggest that students with particular approaches to studying used PS. Second, Tables 5.14 and 5.15 in section 5.4.5 showed that there was only one significant correlation between students’ approaches to studying and their performance in their end of year exams.

5.6.1 Did attendance at PS for Y1s improve students' academic performance?

The students using PS for Y ls performed better than the students who did not use PS for Y ls. The PSUs using PS for Y ls felt that they had gained skills from their involvement in PS, and that it had helped them to improve their academic performance. The PSers offering PS for Y ls felt that PS had helped the PSUs to work in groups, to understand what the course involved, and to be more independent learners. The statistical data shows that PSUs did significantly better in their end of year exams than non-PSUs and that the more PS students attended the higher their grades. When students’ previous academic achievement is controlled for then for students at all levels of previous achievement there is a correlation between attendance at PS. This shows that there is strong evidence that attendance at PS improved students’ academic performance. The triangulation and quantitative and qualitative evidence is important as the statistical evidence alone could never control for all the variables that have an impact on individual students’ achievement. It is possible that the students who used PS were more motivated than those who did not attend. However, the weight of evidence of the qualitative and quantitative data suggests that students who used PS improved their levels o f academic performance because o f it, even if the level of improvement cannot be isolated.

1. Qualitative evidence on whether attendance at PS for Y ls improved students’