Parker’s Study Skills Inventory

Posted: October 17th, 2013

Parker’s Study Skills Inventory

Name:

Lecturer:

Institution:

Course:

Date:

Parker’s Study Skills Inventory

            Dr. Leonard W. Parker has been teaching college students since 1970 and has amassed valuable experience and expertise in that field over the years. Dr. Parker established philosophical method of learning that serves to indicate a student’s performance response to teaching styles implemented by the tutor. This method allows the teacher to the student is engaging in the learning process as expected (Parker & Parker, 2007). Primarily, this gives the teacher an opportunity to identify the best teaching styles for teaching his or her students. Putting this into consideration, the premise of this philosophical method can be taken to imply that a student’s study skills will differ in accordance the teaching style implemented by the teacher. This paper looks to establish the validity of this premise by investigating the variation in study skills of Cassandra Shealey, against varies teaching styles.

Upon studying the pre test and posttest taken, several findings were established. The first test was on time management that tests one on the efficient and effective use of time. There was a noted rise in performance of four. The second test was on note taking and tested on taking notes to facilitate maximum task performance. This exhibited a fall of 3.33. The third test was on listening and investigated ones ability to listen attentively for maximum learning and understanding. The results of this test exhibited a rise of 2.22. Test taking, the other test investigated on maximum preparation and study for an exam. The difference was a fall of 2.22. The test on written communications look to gauge ones ability in writing communication, thought clarity and understanding. The difference between the pre test and post test was a remarkable rise of 17.14.

The seventh test category was a stress test that investigated one’s physical and emotional reaction to events. Remarkably, the difference between the pre and posttest offered no variation. The subsequent test was on career orientation based on one’s attendance to a field study related to their vocation. The difference in performance was an improvement of 4.21 in relation to the memory test, this exam analyzed a student’s learning skills on permanent retention of information. The difference in performance of the memory test was an improved performance of 10.91. The next test, learning behavior, looked to investigate a student’s capability on processing information towards academic success. The difference between the pre and posttest in this regard was a fall of 1.00.

Critical thinking was the subsequent test on taking in, questioning and use of information. The result in this test was a performance rise of 11.11. Regarding the research test, one had to certify their ability to research various information sources on a given field of study. The difference in performance in this test was a performance rise of 6.67. In terms of technology test, the student was tested on use of current technology for maximizing learning experience, and the result was a rise of 16.67. The decision making test tested on best decisions made from given alternatives and the difference in performance was an increase of 2.86. The life skills test evaluated on skills obtained for maintaining current knowledge for growth and development. Similar to the stress test, performance stagnated. The final test, health test, looked to investigate on one’s commitment in maintaining their body through diet and exercise. The difference in performance was a remarkable rise of 20.00.

When the above statistics are analyzed collectively, it is notable that the overall performance rose by 7.05. Going back to Dr. Parker’s philosophical method on learning, the whole process of learning is determined by the student’s attitude and that this determines how much he or she can learn (Parker & Parker, 2007). A review of the student performance analyzed above concludes that the attitudes in the events of the pre test and posttest were entirely different. A study of Dr. Parker’s principle gives us the conclusion that the teaching styles implemented in between the two tests were adapted to best suit the student.

Reference

Parker, Leonard W, & Parker, Karen L. (2007). Learning with Style and Skill: A Description of a Self-Calculating, Computerized Learning Styles Profile and Study Skills Inventory and Its Use for Diagnosing and Prescribing Learning. DigitalCommons@Liberty University.