Undergraduates’ learning profile development: what is happening to the men?

Figures & data

Figure 1. Change in whole cohort perceived SDLR over year 1. A significant change occurred over time (p = 0.00) with all cohorts responding similarly (p = 0.14). (Admission data = Take 1, End year 1 data = Take 2; Bold line indicates mean score for similar samples, Guglielimino, 1977.)

Figure 2. Change in whole cohort perceived SDLR over the three-year programme. A significant change occurred over time (p = 0.008) with both cohorts responding similarly (p = 0.64). (Admission data = Take 1, End year 1 data = Take 2; Beginning year 2 data = Take 3, End year 2 data = Take 4; Beginning year 3 data = Take 5; End year 3 data = Take 6. Bold line indicates mean score for similar samples, Guglielimino, 1977).

Table 1.  Summary of data collection tools. In all cases the higher the score the greater the variable is perceived to be held

Inventory	Variables measured	Score ranges
Self-directed learning readiness scale-A Guglielmino, 1977	Perceived readiness to undertake  self-directed learning	Range: 58–290 Average ‘band’ for a  sample similar to this study: 189–240
Health Student Locus of Control Scale	Internal (personal) and external  (other) academic control belief	A score for each variable ranging from  10–60
Cassidy and Eachus, 2000
Academic Self-efficacy Scale	Perceived ability to succeed in  particular programme	Range: 23–207
Eachus, 1993
Dimensions of Self-concept  Questionnaire Form H	Perception of the following dimension  of academic self-concept:	A score for each dimension ranging  from 10–60
Michael & Smith, 1989	Aspiration for learning
	Satisfaction as a learner
	Identification as a learner
	Willingness to take the
	initiative for learning
	Anxiety in learning
Approaches and Study Skills Inventory  for Students––short version (52 items)	Perceived general approach for any  given academic task. Profiles  respondents across three approach  dimensions:	The three main dimensions score  from 12–60
Tait & Entwistle, 1996	Deep approach
	Strategic approach
	Surface approach
	Inventory can also be used to explore  motivations behind the approaches  adopted

Figure 3. Change in perceived SDLR over the three-year programme defining by admission age. A significant change occurred over time (p = 0.002) with both groups responding similarly (p = 0.431). There was a significant age effect (p = 0.016). (Admission data = Take 1, End year 1 data = Take 2; Beginning year 2 data = Take 3, End year 2 data = Take 4; Beginning year 3 data = Take 5; End year 3 data = Take 6. Bold line indicates mean score for similar samples, Guglielimino, 1977.)

Table 2.  Change in variable scores over 3 years profiling for admission age. Values reflect p-values obtained from a repeated-measures ANOVA with a first-order polynomial contrast

Learning profile variable	Change over time p=	Age effect on change over time p=
SDLR	0.002**	0.431
ASE	0.001**	0.241
Internal ALOC	0.000**	0.856
External ALOC	0.024*	0.853
ASC:
Aspiration	0.000**	0.620
Anxiety	0.048*	0.977
Satisfaction	0.000**	0.442
Initiative	0.000**	0.124
Learner Identity	0.000**	0.623
ASSIST:
Deep learning	0.030*	0.945
Strategic learning	0.001**	0.687
Surface learning	0.022*	0.807

Notes: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.

Figure 4. Change in the perceived SDLR of mature students over the three-year programme. A significant change occurred over time (p = 0.045) with both groups responding similarly (p = 0.3). There was a significant gender effect (p = 0.022). (Admission data = Take 1, End year 1 data = Take 2; Beginning year 2 data = Take 3, End year 2 data = Take 4; Beginning year 3 data = Take 5; End year 3 data = Take 6. Bold line indicates mean score for similar samples, Guglielimino, 1977).

Table 3.  Variable mean scores on admission (Take 1), at the end of Year 1 (Take 2) and at the end of Year 3 (Take 6) of the mature student study sample (Female n = 25, male n = 14)

	Mean score Take 1		Mean score Take 2		Mean score Take 6
Variable	Male	Female	Male	Female	Male	Female
SDLR	213.64	227.64	212.64	218.21	199.88	221.86
ASE	158.14	159.04	143.86	149.67	145.20	161.14
ALOC:
Internal	48.57	50.68	45.07	49.29	44.25	51.36
External	24.43	25.20	25.57	24.17	30.13	25.71
ASC:
Aspiration	57.93	60.84	52.64	56.29	49.07	55.86
Anxiety	37.00	39.72	41.50	39.75	43.27	40.07
Satisfaction	51.93	57.16	48.29	51.42	45.93	50.79
Initiative	42.64	46.64	39.57	42.38	40.47	44.75
Identification	57.00	58.72	58.00	58.46	52.07	55.21
ASSIST:
Deep	45.50	47.17	No data available		41.88	46.43
Strategic	43.80	45.22			38.94	44.21
Surface	30.20	27.94			32.25	27.57

Table 4.  The difference between female and male variable score at Take 6. In all cases the more mature profile is displayed by the mature female group

Variable	Gender effect at Take 6 p=
SDLR	0.002**
ASE	0.009**
Internal ALOC	0.001**
External ALOC	0.063^†
ASC:
Aspiration	0.005**
Satisfaction	0.078^†
ASSIST:	0.052^†
Deep learning	0.012*
Strategic learning	0.014*
Surface learning

Notes: ^†p < 0.1; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

Table 5.  Comparison of learning profiles: ‘Ideal’ autonomous professional versus mature, male undergraduates at the end of year 3. The p-values reflect the change in matched variable mean scores from Take 1 to Take 6

‘Ideal’ autonomous professional learning variable profile		Mature, male final year undergraduate learning variable profile
High	Low	High	Low
SDLR			SDLRS (p = 0.004**)
Internal ALOC	External ALOC	External ALOC (p = 0.014*)	Internal ALOC (p = 0.043*)
ASE			ASE (p = 0.019)
ASC:	ASC:	ASC:	ASC:
Satisfaction Aspiration Initiative	Anxiety	Anxiety (p = 0.098^†)	Aspiration (p = 0.001**) Satisfaction (p = 0.24) Identification (p = 0.019*)
Deep/strategic learning mix	Surface learning	Surface learning (p = 0.040*)	Strategic learning (p = 0.031*)
			Deep learning (p = 0.051^†)

Notes: ^†p < 0.1; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.

Table 6.  Mean final year assessment scores for mature students by gender. The clinical placement scores were not included in the degree classification calculations for the 1997-validated programme

Assessment	Male mean score	Female mean score	P-values for difference between scores
Assignments	57.65	62.468	0.017*
Research project	60.31	61.62	0.889
Final papers	56.38	61.22	0.010**
Overall mark	58.11	61.80	0.043*
Clinical placement  assessment	66.97	66.41	0.246

Notes: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.

Table

•Personal learning profiles provide useful information for the evaluation of undergraduate curricula.

•Learning profiles can be used to track students’ development into the mature learners needed to practice in autonomous healthcare professions.

•There may be evidence of curricular gender biasing in female-dominated healthcare undergraduate programmes.

•Curricular gender biasing may be to the detriment of mature, male undergraduates.

Guglielmino L. Development of the Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Microfilm International, Ann Arbor, Michigan 1977

 Google Scholar

Cassidy S, Eachus P. Learning style, academic belief systems, self-report student proficiency and academic achievement in Higher Education. Educational Psychology 2000; 20: 307–322

 Google Scholar

Michael WB, Smith RA. Dimensions of Self-Concept: A Technical Manual. EDITS, San Diego 1989

 Google Scholar

Tait H, Entwistle N. Identifying students at risk through ineffective study strategies. Higher Education 1996; 31: 97–116

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar