Personality and performance on digit span tests in online and offline settings.

This paper describes two studies examining links between personality and performance on a cognitive test in online and laboratory settings. Study 1 was completed online. 345 participants passively recruited through a personality assessment website completed a Five Factor Model personality inventory derived from the International Personality Item Pool. They then completed an online text-based digit span test. This required participants to repeat increasingly longer strings of digits, either in the same order (forward) or in the opposite of the presentation order (reverse). Conventional digit span tasks ask participants to respond verbally; in this instance they responded by typing the digits. Agreeableness and Openness to Experience each had small but significant associations with forward and reverse digit span. In a second, laboratory based, study, 103 participants completed paper versions of the IPIP Five Factor inventory, the NEO-FFI, and a battery of cognitive tests including the WAIS 4 digit span test. In this instance, Agreeableness and Openness to Experience were not significantly correlated with digit span measures. Taken together, these studies suggest that personality characteristics may influence performance on an online cognitive test. This effect was not seen in an offline version of the study. The paper will consider potential implications for online testing, for equivalence of online and offline methods, and for links between personality and performance on this cognitive test.

The design studio as liminal space

The context of this research focuses on the efficacy of design studio as a form of teaching and learning. The established model of project-based teaching makes simple parallels between studio and professional practice. However, through comparison of the discourses it is clear that they are of different character. The protocols of the tutorial tradition can act to position the tutor as a defender of the knowledge community rather than a discourse guide for the student. The question arises as to what constitutes the core knowledge that would enable better self-directed study. Rather than focus on key knowledge, there has been an attempt in other fields to agree and share ‘threshold concepts’ within disciplinary knowledge. Meyer and Land describe threshold concepts as representing “a transformed way of understanding, or interpreting or viewing something without which the learner cannot progress [1]. The tutor’s role should be to assist in transforming student’s understanding through the mastery of the ‘troublesome knowledge’ that threshold concepts may embody. Teaching and learning environments under such approaches have been described as ‘liminal’: holding the learner in an ‘in-between’ state new understanding may be difficult and involve identity shifts. Research on the consequence of pressures on facilities and studio space concur, and indicate that studio spaces can be much better used in assisting the path of learning [2]. Through an overview map of threshold concepts, the opportunities for blended learning in supporting student learning in the liminal space of the design studio become much clearer [3] Design studio needs to be recontextualised within the discourse of higher education scholarship, based on a clarified curriculum built from an understanding of what constitutes its threshold concepts. The studio needs to be reconsidered as a space quite unlike that of the practitioner, a liminal space. 1. Meyer, J.H.F. and R. Land, Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge. Overcoming Barriers to Student Learning: Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge., 2006: p. 19. 2. Cai, H. and S. Khan, The Common First Year Studio in a Hot-desking Age: An Explorative Study on the Studio Environment and Learning. Journal for Education in the Built Environment 2010. 5(2): p. 39-64. 3. Pektas, S.T., The Blended Design Studio: An Appraisal of New Delivery Modes in Design Education. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2012. 51(0): p. 692-697.

Teaching by leading and managing learning environments

The aim of this chapter is to promote an understanding of how different environments or settings within which students are asked or required to learn - such as large groups, small groups and laboratory and practice settings – have an impact on how they approach their learning and hence on the design and delivery of teaching. It provides an overview of underpinning principles and concepts before exploring their application in practice. The focus is on face-to-face teaching and learning.