Khám Phá Những Khái Niệm Của Giảng Viên STEM Về Kế Hoạch Giảng Dạy Và Sửa Đổi

Robert M. Erdmann1, Ken Miller2, Marilyne Stains3
1Campus Learning Data and Technology, University of Minnesota Rochester, Rochester, MN, USA
2William Jennings Bryan High School, Omaha, NE, USA
3Department of Chemistry, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22904-4319, USA

Tóm tắt

Tóm tắt Nền tảng Các sáng kiến địa phương và quốc gia nhằm cải thiện trải nghiệm học tập của sinh viên theo học các khóa học Khoa học, Công nghệ, Kỹ thuật và Toán học (STEM) đã diễn ra trong vài thập kỷ qua, với đà phát triển tăng cao trong 10 năm qua. Tuy nhiên, các nghiên cứu quy mô lớn gần đây đã chỉ ra rằng việc truyền đạt thông tin vẫn là phương thức dạy học chính trong các khóa học STEM trong toàn bộ chương trình đại học. Tác động hạn chế của các nỗ lực cải cách dạy học có thể được giải thích một phần bởi sự tập trung một chiều của nghiên cứu giáo dục vào việc phát triển các phương pháp giảng dạy dựa trên bằng chứng và sản xuất các bằng chứng chứng minh ảnh hưởng của chúng đến việc học của sinh viên. Điều này đã được thực hiện với cái giá phải trả cho việc hiểu biết về các thực hành và tư duy giảng dạy của giảng viên, điều đó nằm dưới những thực hành của họ. Nghiên cứu này giải quyết khoảng trống trong tài liệu bằng cách mô tả các ý định giảng dạy và suy ngẫm của các giảng viên STEM về hiệu suất giảng dạy của họ trong một tuần dạy học. Dữ liệu được thu thập thông qua các cuộc phỏng vấn bán cấu trúc với 42 giảng viên STEM từ một cơ sở đào tạo tiến sĩ tại Hoa Kỳ. Kết quả Các giảng viên STEM trong nghiên cứu này có tư duy tập trung vào giáo viên liên quan đến kế hoạch giảng dạy của họ (ví dụ: các mục tiêu học tập tập trung vào nội dung, bài giảng được coi là một chiến lược thu hút). Chúng tôi nhận thấy rằng các giảng viên này chủ yếu coi các công cụ đánh giá hình thành là chiến lược thu hút hơn là công cụ để theo dõi việc học của sinh viên. Những suy ngẫm về mức độ hài lòng của họ với tuần giảng dạy tập trung nặng nề vào việc bao phủ nội dung và cảm xúc cá nhân và chỉ xem xét tối thiểu đến việc học của sinh viên. Cuối cùng, chúng tôi phát hiện ra rằng sự không hài lòng về phương pháp sư phạm không phải là động lực cho các sửa đổi khóa học được lên kế hoạch.

Từ khóa

#STEM #Giảng viên #Kế hoạch giảng dạy #Phản ánh #Đổi mới sư phạm

Tài liệu tham khảo

American Association for Higher Education. (2000). Targeting curricular change: reform in undergraduate education in science, math, engineering, and technology. Washington, D.C.: American Association for Higher Education.

Amundsen, C., Gryspeerdt, D., & Moxness, K. (1993). Practice-centered inquiry: Developing more effective teaching. Review of Higher Education, 16(3), 329–353.

Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: a revision of bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.

Andrews, T. C., & Lemons, P. P. (2015). It’s personal: Biology instructors prioritize personal evidence over empirical evidence in teaching decisions. CBE - Life Sciences Education, 14(1), 1–18.

Apkarian, N., & Kirin, D. (2017). Progress through calculus: census survey technical report. Retrieved from https://www.maa.org/sites/default/files/PtC%20Technical%20Report_Final.pdf. Accessed 9 May, 2018.

Association of American Universities. (2017). Undergraduate STEM Education Initiative. https://www.aau.edu/education-service/undergraduate-education/undergraduate-stem-education-initiative. Accessed 24 April, 2017.

Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, F. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals, Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay.

Borrego, M., Froyd, J. E., & Hall, T. S. (2010). Diffusion of engineering education innovations: A survey of awareness and adoption rates in U.S. engineering departments. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(3), 185–207.

Borrego, M., & Henderson, C. (2014). Theoretical perspectives on change in STEM higher education and their implications for engineering education research and practice. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(1), 45–76.

Bretz, S. L. (2012). Navigating the landscape of assessment. Journal of Chemical Education, 89(6), 689–691.

Brookfield, S. D. (1986). Understanding and facilitating adult learning: a comprehensive analysis of principles and effective practices. London: McGraw-Hill Education.

Brookfield, S. D. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bubnys, R., & Zavadskiene, L. (2017). Exploring the concept of reflective practice in the context of student-centered teacher education. Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference, 1, 91-101.

Clark, C., & Lampert, M. (1986). The Study of Teacher Thinking: Implications for Teacher Education. Journal of Teacher Education, 37(5), 27–31.

Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers’ thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 255–296). New York, NY: MacMillan.

Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and teacher education, 18(8), 947–967.

Davila, K., & Talanquer, V. (2010). Classifying end-of-chapter questions and problems for selected general chemistry textbooks used in the United States. Journal of Chemical Education, 87(1), 97–101.

De Vries, H., Elliott, M. N., Kanouse, D. E., & Teleki, S. S. (2008). Using pooled kappa to summarize interrater agreement across many items. Field Methods, 20(3), 272–282.

Eagan, K. (2016). Becoming More Student-Centered? An examination of faculty teaching practices across STEM and non-STEM Disciplines between 2004 and 2014: Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.

Edwards, G., & Thomas, G. (2010). Can reflective practice be taught? Educational Studies, 36(4), 403–414.

Emenike, M., Raker, J. R., & Holme, T. (2013). Validating chemistry faculty members' self-reported familiarity with assessment terminology. Journal of Chemical Education, 90(9), 1130–1136.

Feldman, A. (2000). Decision making in the practical domain: a model of practical conceptual change. Science & Education, 84(5), 606–623.

Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415.

Geis, G.L. (1996). Planning and developing effective courses. In R.J. Menges, M. Weimer, & Associates, Teaching on solid ground: using scholarship to improve practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gess-Newsome, J. (2015). A model of teacher professional knowledge and skill including PCK. In A. Berry, P. Friedrichsen, & J. Loughran (Eds.), Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education (pp. 28–42). New York: Routledge.

Gess-Newsome, J., Southerland, S. A., Johnston, A., & Woodbury, S. (2003). Educational reform, personal practical theories, and dissatisfaction: The anatomy of change in college science teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 731–767.

Goodman, L. A., & Kruskal, W. H. (1954). Measures of association for cross classifications. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 49(268), 732–764.

Handelsman, J., Ebert-May, D., Beichner, R., Bruns, P., Chang, A., DeHaan, R., et al. (2004). Scientific Teaching. Science, 304(5670), 521–522.

Henderson, C., Beach, A., & Finkelstein, N. (2011). Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: an analytic review of the literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(8), 952–984.

Henderson, C., & Dancy, M. H. (2007). Barriers to the use of research-based instructional strategies: The influence of both individual and situational characteristics. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 3, 020102.

Henderson, C., & Dancy, M. H. (2009). Impact of physics education research on the teaching of introductory quantitative physics in the United States. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 5(2), 020107.

Hora, M. T., & Hunter, A.-B. (2014). Exploring the dynamics of organizational learning: identifying the decision chains science and math faculty use to plan and teach undergraduate courses. International Journal of STEM Education, 1, 8.

Hubball, H., Collins, J., & Pratt, D. (2005). Enhancing reflective teaching practices: implications for faculty development programs. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 35(3), 57–81.

Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research. (2015). The Carnegie classification of institutions of higher education. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research.

Kane, R., Sandretto, S., & Heath, C. (2004). An investigation into excellent tertiary teaching: Emphasising reflective practice. Higher Education, 47(3), 283–310.

Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174.

Lane, R., McMaster, H., Adnum, J., & Cavanagh, M. (2014). Quality reflective practice in teacher education: a journey towards shared understanding. Reflective Practice, 15(4), 481–494.

Larrivee, B. (2008). Development of a tool to assess teachers' level of reflective practice. Reflective Practice, 9(3), 341–360.

Lee, H.-J. (2005). Understanding and assessing preservice teachers' reflective thinking. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(6), 699–715.

Lund, T. J., & Stains, M. (2015). The importance of context: an exploration of factors influencing the adoption of student-centered teaching among chemistry, biology, and physics faculty. International Journal of STEM Education, 2(1), 13.

Macdonald, R. H., Manduca, C. A., Mogk, D. W., & Tewksbury, B. J. (2005). Teaching methods in undergraduate geoscience courses: Results of the 2004 on the cutting edge survey of U.S. faculty. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(3), 237–252.

Mazur, E. (1997). Peer Instruction: A User's Manual. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Menges, R. J., & Austin, A. E. (2001). Teaching in higher education. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Mervis, J. (2014). Studies suggest two-way street for science majors. Science, 343, 125–126.

Momsen, J. L., Long, T. M., Wyse, S. A., & Ebert-May, D. (2010). Just the Facts? Introductory Undergraduate Biology Courses Focus on Low-Level Cognitive Skills. CBE - Life Sciences Education, 9(4), 435–440.

National Research Council. (1999). Transforming undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (2003a). Bio 2010: Transforming undergraduate education for future research biologists. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2003b). Evaluating and improving undergraduate teaching in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (2011). Promising practices in undergraduate science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education: Summary of Two Workshops. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2012). Discipline-based education research: understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.

National Science Foundation. (2013). Widening implementation & demonstration of evidence-based reforms (WIDER). Program Solicitation. https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13552/nsf13552.htm. Accessed 24 April, 2017.

Novak, G. M., Patterson, E. T., Gavrin, A. D., & Christian, W. (1999). Just-in-time teaching: blending active learning with web technology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Olson, S., & Riordan, D. G. (2012). Report to the president: engage to excel: producing One million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics Washington. D.C.: The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Slate, J. R., Leech, N. L., & Collins, K. M. T. (2007). Conducting mixed analyses: a general typology. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 1, 4–17.

Osterman, K. F. (1990). Reflective practice: a new agenda for education. Education and Urban Society, 22(2), 133–152.

Pearson, R. (2016). GoodmanKruskal: Association analysis for categorical variables. R Package. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=GoodmanKruskal. Accessed 10 March, 2017.

Penberthy, D. L., & Millar, S. B. (2002). The “hands-off ” as a flawed approach to disseminating innovation: Lessons from chemistry. Innovative Higher Education, 26, 251–270.

Prince, M., Borrego, M., Henderson, C., Cutler, S., & Froyd, J. (2013). Use of research-based instructional strategies in core chemical engineering courses. Chemical Engineering Education, 47(1), 27–37.

Project Kaleidoscope. (2002). Report on reports: recommendations for action in support of undergraduate science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Washington, D.C.: Project Kaleidoscope.

Project Kaleidoscope. (2006). Report on Reports II: Transforming America’s Scientific and Technological Infrastructure: Recommendations for Urgent Action. Washington, D.C.: Project Kaleidoscope.

QSR International Pty Ltd. (2011). NVivo, Version 9. Australia: Melbourne.

R Core Team (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing, Version 3.3.2. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/

Raker, J. R., & Holme, T. A. (2014). Investigating faculty familiarity with assessment terminology by applying cluster analysis to interpret survey data. Journal of Chemical Education, 91(8), 1145–1151.

Russell, T. (2006). Can reflective practice be taught? Reflective Practice, 6(2), 199–204.

Saldaña, J. (2013). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.

Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. M. (1997). Talking about leaving: why undergraduates leave the sciences. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

Shadle, S. E., Marker, A., & Earl, B. (2017). Faculty drivers and barriers: laying the groundwork for undergraduate STEM education reform in academic departments. International Journal of STEM Education, 4(1), 8.

Slevin, J. F. (2001). Engaging intellectual work: the faculty's role in assessment. College English, 63(3), 288–305.

So, W. W. (1997). A study of teacher cognition in planning elementary science lessons. Research in Science Education, 27(1), 71–86.

Southerland, S. A., Nadelson, L., Sowell, S., Saka, Y., Kahveci, M., & Granger, E. M. (2012). Measuring one aspect of teachers’ affective states: development of the science teachers’ pedagogical discontentment scale. School Science and Mathematics, 112(8), 483–494.

Southerland, S. A., Sowell, S., Blanchard, M., & Granger, E. M. (2011a). Exploring the construct of pedagogical discontentment: A tool to understand science teachers' openness to reform. Research in Science Education, 41(3), 299–317.

Southerland, S. A., Sowell, S., & Enderle, P. (2011b). Science teachers’ pedagogical discontentment: Its sources and potential for change. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22(5), 437–457.

Stains, M., Harshman, J., Barker, M. K., Chasteen, S. V., Cole, R., DeChenne-Peters, S. E., et al. (2018). Anatomy of STEM teaching in North American universities. Science, 359(6383), 1468–1470.

Stark, J. S. (2000). Planning introductory college courses: content, context and form. Instructional Science, 28(5), 413–438.

Stark, J. S., Lowther, M. A., Ryan, M. P., & Genthon, M. (1988). Faculty reflect on course planning. Research in Higher Education, 29(3), 219–240.

Swartz, L. B., Cole, M. T., & Shelley, D. J. (2010). Instructor satisfaction with teaching business law: Online vs. onground. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 6(1), 1–16.

Talanquer, V. (2014). DBER and STEM education reform: are we up to the challenge? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(6), 809–819.

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Applied Social Research Methods Series, No. 46. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Teasdale, R., Viskupic, K., Bartley, J. K., McConnell, D., Manduca, C., Bruckner, M., et al. (2017). A multidimensional assessment of reformed teaching practice in geoscience classrooms. Geosphere, 13(2), 608–627.

Tomanek, D., Talanquer, V., & Novodvorsky, I. (2008). What do science teachers consider when selecting formative assessment tasks? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(10), 1113–1130.

Turpen, C., & Finkelstein, N. D. (2009). Not all interactive engagement is the same: variations in physics professors’ implementation of peer instruction. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 5(2), 020101.

Tyler, R. W. (1950). Basic principles of curriculum development. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Warfa, A.-R. M. (2017). Mixed-methods design in biology education research: approaches and uses. CBE – Life Sciences Education, 15(4), 1–11.

Wasilik, O., & Bolliger, D. U. (2009). Faculty satisfaction in the online environment: an institutional study. Internet and Higher Education, 12(3-4), 173–178.

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Zieffler, A., Park, J., Garfield, J., Delmas, R., & Bjornsdottir, A. (2012). The statistics teaching inventory: A survey on statistics teachers’ classroom practices and beliefs. Journal of Statistics Education, 20(1), 1–29.