A Q factor analysis of college undergraduate students' study behaviors

The purpose of this study was to better understand the study behaviors and habits of university undergraduate students. It was designed to determine whether undergraduate students could be grouped based on their self-reported study behaviors and if any grouping system could be determined, whether group membership was related to students’ academic achievement. A total of 152 undergraduate students voluntarily participated in the current study by completing the Study Behavior Inventory instrument. All participants were enrolled in fall semester of 2010 at Florida International University. The Q factor analysis technique using principal components extraction and a varimax rotation was used in order to examine the participants in relation to each other and to detect a pattern of intercorrelations among participants based on their self-reported study behaviors. The Q factor analysis yielded a two factor structure representing two distinct student types among participants regarding their study behaviors. The first student type (i.e., Factor 1) describes proactive learners who organize both their study materials and study time well. Type 1 students are labeled “Proactive Learners with Well-Organized Study Behaviors”. The second type (i.e., Factor 2) represents students who are poorly organized as well as being very likely to procrastinate. Type 2 students are labeled Disorganized Procrastinators. Hierarchical linear regression was employed to examine the relationship between student type and academic achievement as measured by current grade point averages (GPAs). The results showed significant differences in GPAs between Type 1 and Type 2 students at the .05 significance level. Furthermore, student type was found to be a significant predictor of academic achievement beyond and above students’ attribute variables including sex, age, major, and enrollment status. The study has several implications for educational researchers, practitioners, and policy makers in terms of improving college students' learning behaviors and outcomes.

A Q-Methodology approach to investigating the relationship between level of reflection and typologies among prospective teachers in the physics learning assistant program at Florida International University

The purpose of this mixed methods study was to understand physics Learning Assistants' (LAs) views on reflective teaching, expertise in teaching, and LA program teaching experience and to determine if views predicted level of reflection evident in writing. Interviews were conducted in Phase One, Q methodology was used in Phase Two, and level of reflection in participants' writing was assessed using a rubric based on Hatton and Smith's (1995) "Criteria for the Recognition of Evidence for Different Types of Reflective Writing" in Phase Three. Interview analysis revealed varying perspectives on content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and experience in relation to expertise in teaching. Participants revealed that they engaged in reflection on their teaching, believed reflection helps teachers improve, and found peer reflection beneficial. Participants believed teaching experience in the LA program provided preparation for teaching, but that more preparation was needed to teach. Three typologies emerged in Phase Two. Type One LAs found participation in the LA program rewarding and believed expertise in teaching does not require expertise in content or pedagogy, but it develops over time from reflection. Type Two LAs valued reflection, but not writing reflections, felt the LA program teaching experience helped them decide on non-teaching careers and helped them confront gaps in their physics knowledge. Type Three LAs valued reflection, believed expertise in content and pedagogy are necessary for expert teaching, and felt LA program teaching experience increased their likelihood of becoming teachers, but did not prepare them for teaching. Writing assignments submitted in Phase Three were categorized as 19% descriptive writing, 60% descriptive reflections, and 21% dialogic reflections. No assignments were categorized as critical reflection. Using ordinal logistic regression, typologies that emerged in Phase Two were not found to be predictors for the level of reflection evident in the writing assignments. In conclusion, viewpoints of physics LAs were revealed, typologies among them were discovered, and their writing gave evidence of their ability to reflect on teaching. These findings may benefit faculty and staff in the LA program by helping them better understand the views of physics LAs and how to assess their various forms of reflection.