Evaluating the Factors that Facilitate a Deep Understanding of Data Analysis

Ideally the product of tertiary informatic study is more than a qualification, it is a rewarding experience of learning in a discipline area. It should build a desire for a deeper understanding and lead to fruitful research both personally and for the benefit of the wider community. This paper asks: 'What are the factors that lead to this type of quality (deep) learning in data analysis?' In the study reported in this paper, students whose general approach to learning was achieving or surface oriented adopted a deep approach when the context encouraged it. An overseas study found a decline in deep learning at this stage of a tertiary program; the contention of this paper is that the opposite of this expected outcome was achieved due to the enhanced learning environment. Though only 15.1% of students involved in this study were deep learners, the data analysis instructional context resulted in 38.8% of students achieving deep learning outcomes. Other factors discovered that contributed to deep learning outcomes were an increase in the intrinsic motivation of students to study the domain area; their prior knowledge of informatics; assessment that sought an integrated, developed yet comprehensive understanding of analytical concepts and processes; and, their learning preferences. The preferences of deep learning students are analyzed in comparison to another such study of professionals in informatics, examining commonalties and differences between this and the wider professional study.

[1]  David B. Paradice,et al.  Database Systems for Management , 1988 .

[2]  J. Biggs What are effective schools? Lessons from east and west , 1994 .

[3]  John Biggs,et al.  INDIVIDUAL AND GROUP DIFFERENCES IN STUDY PROCESSES , 1978 .

[4]  Kevin F. Collis,et al.  Evaluating the Quality of Learning: The SOLO Taxonomy , 1977 .

[5]  P. Candy,et al.  Self-Direction for Lifelong Learning , 1993 .

[6]  F. Marton,et al.  ON QUALITATIVE DIFFERENCES IN LEARNING—II OUTCOME AS A FUNCTION OF THE LEARNER'S CONCEPTION OF THE TASK , 1976 .

[7]  Mildred S. Friedman Context for Learning , 1974 .

[8]  Julie E. Kendall,et al.  Systems analysis and design , 1981 .

[9]  T. William Olle Data Modelling and Conceptual Modelling: a comparative analysis of functionality and roles , 1993, Australas. J. Inf. Syst..

[10]  Robert P. Bostrom,et al.  The effects of an intrinsically motivating instructional environment on software learning and acceptance , 1994, Inf. Syst. J..

[11]  Jeffrey L. Whitten,et al.  Systems Analysis and Design Methods , 1986 .

[12]  J. Biggs Individual differences in study processes and the Quality of Learning Outcomes , 1979 .

[13]  Peter P. Chen The entity-relationship model: toward a unified view of data , 1975, VLDB '75.

[14]  James Martin,et al.  Information engineering , 1981 .

[15]  Graeme G. Shanks,et al.  What Makes a Good Data Model? Evaluating the Quality of Entity Relationship Models , 1994, ER.

[16]  Laurian M. Chirica,et al.  The entity-relationship model: toward a unified view of data , 1975, SIGF.

[17]  Gordon B. Davis,et al.  A new second information systems course: personal productivity with information technology , 1994, Business Process Re-Engineering.

[18]  I. B. Myers Manual: A Guide to the Development and Use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator , 1985 .

[19]  B. Bloom Taxonomy of educational objectives , 1956 .

[20]  R. W. Revans The nature of action learning , 1981 .

[21]  David M. Kroenke,et al.  Database Processing , 1977 .