Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
Table 1. Differences in student opinions of lecturer before and after the introduction of
metacognitive education and changes to teaching practice
Criterion
Before new
practices
n=165
After new
practices
n=194
Good teaching rating
66.0%
76.6%
Overall lecturer rating
58.8%
84%
Helped to motivate the student
66%
75%
Helped to develop analytical skills in
the subject
65%
66%
Helped to develop general problem
solving skills
50%
76%
Lecturer understood student learning
problems and worked to overcome
them
60%
86.6%
Lecturer was extremely good at
explaining things
63%
100%
Note: Items 1 and 2 are based upon the entire evaluation instrument with student assessment
factored in. The remaining items relate to specific questions within the instrument. Some
changes were made to the wording of the instrument in the second semester of the new
practices in relation to Items 5 and 6. While the wording was broadly equivalent, I needed
to eliminate bias and so took a sample of 16 students and asked them the same questions
in the same words and obtained similar results.
Despite being unable to counter Item 2 absolutely, it is argued that the exercise been
beneficial. On balance of probability, it is apparent that the changes introduced are in
accordance with good educational strategy. Changes to subject matter have been minor, and
the assessment methods have been subject to control and scrutiny. The improvement in
student outcomes began when the changes were effected and has continued. The overall
sample sizes are statistically significant, and the use of the tracking facility in WebCT has
enabled me to see that students who have availed themselves of the metacognitive resources
provided have tended to perform better in assessment and examination.
With regard to Item 3, the same course and practices were carried out over an eight-
trimester period at a private college, whether or not materials were subject to additional
scrutiny and control. Here, the survey of student perceptions was not carried out; however,
the changes to student outcomes closely paralleled those described above.
Given the time-scale over which the data span, I had the opportunity to track some
students' performances in other subject areas. I found some who sustained an improved level
of performance in all their subsequent study. I noted that most showed improved performance
in Information Systems related units only, not in all their subsequent study (in non-IS study,
their averages were significantly lower). Although further investigation is required, I would
suggest that this finding tends to confirm the view of Perkins and Solomon (1989) that
