CHI TIẾT NGHIÊN CỨU …
Tiêu đề
Students’ perspectives on different teaching methods: comparing innovative and traditional courses in a technology program
Tác giả
Debs L.; Miller K.D.; Ashby I.; Exter M.
Năm xuất bản
2019
Source title
Research in Science and Technological Education
Số trích dẫn
8
DOI
10.1080/02635143.2018.1551199
Liên kết
Tóm tắt
Background: A growing number of educators have started exploring student-centered approaches to improve students’ learning and satisfaction with courses and programs. While prior research shows a positive impact of such strategies on student learning, further exploration of the perceptions of traditional, lecture-based and other more inquiry-based active learning as experienced by students within the same university is needed. Purpose: To compare students’ perceptions of the learning environment in studio-type courses within an innovative pilot student-centered transdisciplinary learning experience to the environment in traditional lecture or lecture-and-lab courses. Program description: An innovative learning experience that employs student-centered teaching strategies to engage students in the transdisciplinary exploration of technology and liberal arts within a technology-focused college in a large land-grant university. Sample: At the end of the first semester, eight students who chose to leave the program were interviewed. At the end of the second semester, eight students who chose to remain in the program and four students who left after the first semester were interviewed. Design/Method: Student were interviewed individually during the end of either their Fall 2014 semester or Spring 2015 semester. A thematic analysis was conducted. Frequency of occurrence was counted and compared for each theme. Results: The most frequently mentioned differences between traditional courses and this learning experience regarded instruction, assessment, and uncertainty. Students enjoyed the flexibility of a more student-centered approach, but struggled with understanding assessment and time management within self-directed transdisciplinary coursework. Student learning preferences appeared to influence their perceptions of each teaching method. Conclusions: Although results seemed to be influenced by personal preferences, time management and dealing with uncertainty were sources of frustration across both groups of students. Scaffolding students in these two areas may help students make an easier transition toward more student-centered learning environments. © 2018, © 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
Từ khóa
Instructional methods; learning environment; student perception; uncertainty; undergraduate education
Tài liệu tham khảo
Alfieri L., Brooks P., Aldrich N., Tenenbaum H., Does Discovery-Based Instruction Enhance Learning?, Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 1, pp. 1-18, (2011); Looking under the hood of competency-based education the relationship between competency-based education practices and students’ learning skills, behaviors, and dispositions, Executive Summary, (2015); Ashby I., Exter M., (2015); Ashby I., Exter M., Matei S., Evans J., (2016); Ashby I., Caskurlu S., Exter M., Evolving roles of faculty at an emerging hybrid competency-based transdisciplinary program, The Journal of Competency-based Education, 31, (2018); Baker R., The student experience. how competency-based education providers serve students, AEI Series on Competency-Based Higher Education, Center on Higher Education Reform, American Enterprise Institute, (2015); Bertoline G., Mili F., (2013); Bonwell C., Eison J., Active Learning: Creating Excitement In The Classroom, ASHEERIC Higher Education Report No. 1, (1991); Bransford J.D., Brown A.L., Cocking R.R., How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School, (1999); Brinkmann S., Qualitative Interviewing. Oxford University Press., (2013); Bruner J.S., The Act of Discovery, Harvard Educational Review, 31, pp. 21-32, (1961); Capps D.K., Crawford B.A., Constas M.A., A review of empirical literature on inquiry professional development: Alignment with best practices and a critique of the findings, Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23, 3, pp. 291-318, (2012); Cleary M.N., Faculty and staff roles and responsibilities in the design and delivery of competency-based education programs: a c-ben snapshot, (2015); Cronje T., Coll R.K., Student Perceptions of Higher Education Science and Engineering Learning Communities, Research in Science & Technological Education, 26, 3, pp. 295-309, (2008); De Graaf E., Kolmos A., Characteristics of Problem-Based Learning, International Journal of Engineering Education, 19, 5, pp. 657-662, (2003); Deci E., Ryan R., Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior, (1985); Deterding S., Khaled R., Nacke L., Dixon D., Gamification: Toward a Definition, Proceedings of the CHI 2011, (2011); Dorsey L.E., Baker C.M., Mentoring Undergraduate Nursing Students: Assessing the State of the Science, Nurse Educator, 29, 6, pp. 260-265, (2004); Driscoll M., Psychology of Learning for Instruction, (2005); Dym C., Agogino A., Eris O., Frey D., Leifer L., Engineering Design Thinking, Teaching, and Learning, Journal of Engineering Education, 94, 1, pp. 103-120, (2005); Edelson D.C., Learning-For-Use: A Framework for the Design of Technology-Supported Inquiry Activities, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 3, pp. 355-385, (2001); Ellis D., What Discourages Students from Engaging with Innovative Instructional Methods: Creating a Barrier Framework, Innovative Higher Education, 40, pp. 111-125, (2015); Exter M., Ashby I., Caskurlu S., Why students choose to join and leave a new transdisciplinary, competency-based degree program, Presented at the Association for Educational Communications and Technology National Conference, (2015); Felder R., Brent R., Understanding Student Differences, Journal of Engineering Education, 94, 1, pp. 57-72, (2005); Felder R.M., Brent R., The intellectual development of science and engineering students, Part 1: Models and Challenges. Journal of Engineering Education, 93, 4, pp. 269-277, (2004); Freeman S., Eddy S., McDonough M., Smith M., Okoroafor N., Jordt H., Wenderoth M., Active Learning Increases Student Performance in Science, Engineering, and Mathematics, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, 23, pp. 8410-8415, (2014); Fyfe E., Rittle-Johnson B., DeCaro M., The Effects of Feedback during Exploratory Mathematics Problem Solving: Prior Knowledge Matters, Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 4, pp. 1094-1108, (2012); Gallup I., Great Jobs, Great Lives. The Relationship between Student Debt, Experiences, and Perceptions of College Worth: Gallup-Purdue Index 2015 Report, (2015); Hackathorn J., Solomon E., Blnakmeyer K., Tennial R., Garczynski A., Learning by Doing: An Empirical Study of Active Teaching Techniques, The Journal of Effective Teaching, 11, 2, pp. 40-54, (2011); Hall W., Palmer S., Bennett M., A Longitudinal Evaluation of A Project-Based Learning Initiative in A Engineering Undergraduate Programme, European Journal of Engineering Education, 37, 2, pp. 155-165, (2012); Holley K., Interdisciplinary curriculum and learning in higher education, Oxford Research Encyclopedia Of Education, (2017); Kanter D., Doing the Project and Learning the Content: Designing Project-Based Science Curricula for Meaningful Understanding, Science Education, 94, 3, pp. 525-551, (2010); Kirschner P., Sweller J., Clark R., Why Minimal Guidance during Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching, Educational Psychologist, 41, 2, pp. 75-86, (2006); Koenen A.-K., Dochy F., Berghmans I., A Phenomenographic Analysis of the Implementation of Competence-Based Education in Higher Education, Teaching and Teacher Education, 50, pp. 1-12, (2015); Kunz A.H., Daniels awards prize for competency-based degree to Purdue Polytechnic Institute - Purdue University [Press Release, (2014); Lattuca L., Creating Interdisciplinarity: Interdisciplinary Research and Teaching among College and University Faculty, (2001); Lozano-Guerrero A., Martinez-Gonzalez A., Diaz-Morcillo A., PBL and Group Tutoring, Project Based Learning on Engineering: Foundations, Applications and Challenges, (2015); Mayer R., Should There Be a Three-Strikes Rule against Pure Discovery Learning? the Case for Guided Methods of Instruction, American Psychologist, 59, pp. 14-19, (2004); Mills J., Treagust D., Engineering Education–Is Problem-Based or Project-Based Learning the Answer?, Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 3, 2, pp. 2-16, (2003); Mishra A., Gahlot H., Soft Skills Development through Humanities and Social Sciences Curriculum in Technical Education, International Journal of Engineering Sciences & Research Technology, 1, 2, pp. 47-51, (2012); Mishra S., (2014); Mobley C., Lee C., Morse J., Allen J., Murphy C., Learning about Sustainability: An Interdisciplinary Graduate Seminar in Biocomplexity, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 15, 1, pp. 16-33, (2014); Moura I., van Hattum-Janssen N., Teaching a CS Introductory Course: An Active Approach, Computers & Education, 56, pp. 475-483, (2011); Owen S., Dickson D., Stanisstreet M., Boyes E., Teaching Physics: Students’ Attitudes Towards Different Learning Activities, Research in Science & Technological Education, 26, 2, pp. 113-128, (2008); Perkins D., What Constructivism Demands of the Learner, Educational Technology, 31, pp. 19-21, (1991); Pittinsky M., Credentialing in Higher Education: Current Challenges and Innovative Trends, Educause Review, 50, 2, (2015); Prince M., Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the Research, Journal of Engineering Education, 93, 3, pp. 223-231, (2004); Prince M., Felder R., Inductive Teaching and Learning Methods: Definitions, Comparisons, and Research Bases, Journal of Engineering Education, 95, 2, pp. 123-138, (2006); Ralph R., Post-Secondary Project-Based Learning in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics, Journal of Technology and Science Education, 6, 1, pp. 26-35, (2015); Robinson E., Niemer L., A Peer Mentor Tutor Program for Academic Success in Nursing, Nursing Education Perspective, 31, 5, pp. 286-289, (2010); Robson N., Dalmis I., Trenev V., Discovery Learning in Mechanical Engineering Design: Case-Based Learning or Learning by Exploring?, Proceedings for the 2012 American society for engineering education conference, San Antonio, (2012); Rugarcia A., Felder R., Woods D., Stice J., The Future of Engineering Education. Part 1. A Vision for A New Century, Chemical Engineering Education, 34, 1, pp. 16-26, (2000); Ryan R., Deci E., Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being, American Psychologist, 55, 1, pp. 68-78, (2000); Sailer M., Hense J., Mandl H., Klevers M., Psychological Perspectives on Motivation through Gamification, Interaction Design and Architecture(S) Journal, 19, pp. 28-37, (2013); Saldana J., The coding manual for qualitative researchers (No. 14), (2012); Silva E., White T., Toch T., The carnegie unit: A century-old standard in a changing education landscape, Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, (2015); Singer J., Marx R.W., Krajcik J.S., Chambers J.C., Constructing Extended Inquiry Projects: Curriculum Materials for Science Education Reform, Educational Psychologist, 35, 3, pp. 165-178, (2000); Smith P.J., Technology Student Learning Preferences and the Design of Flexible Learning Programs, Instructional Science, 29, 3, pp. 237-254, (2001); Spelt E., Luning P., van Boekel M., Mulder M., Constructively Aligned Teaching and Learning in Higher Education in Engineering: What Do Students Perceive as Contributing to the Learning of Interdisciplinary Thinking?, European Journal of Engineering Education, 40, 5, pp. 459-475, (2015); Stern L., Roseman J.E., Can Middle-School Science Textbooks Help Students Learn Important Ideas? Findings from Project 2061’s Curriculum Evaluation Study: Life Science, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 6, pp. 538-568, (2004); Strobel J., van Barneveld A., When Is PBL More Effective? A Meta-Synthesis of Meta-Analyses Comparing PBL to Conventional Classrooms, Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 3, 1, pp. 44-58, (2009); Takaya K., Jerome Bruner: Developing a Sense of Possible, (2013); Tucker J., Au A., Neely P., A Comparison of Traditional Vs. Competency-Based Education Faculty Roles, SITE 2015 conference proceedings, (2015); Tynjala P., Towards Expert Knowledge? A Comparison between A Constructivist and A Traditional Learning Environment in the University, International Journal of Educational Research, 31, pp. 357-442, (1999); Wallen M., Pandit A., Developing Research Competencies through a Project-Based Tissue-Engineering Module in the Biomedical Engineering Undergraduate Curriculum, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part H: Journal of Engineering in Medicine, 223, 4, pp. 443-448, (2009); Weiler A., Information-Seeking Behavior in Generation Y Students: Motivation, Critical Thinking, and Learning Theory, The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 31, 1, pp. 46-53, (2005); Wijnia L., Loyens S., Derous E., Investigating Effects of Problem-Based versus Lecture-Based Learning Environments on Student Motivation, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, pp. 101-113, (2011); Wilson A., Knowledge Power: Interdisciplinary Education for a Complex World, (2010); Yadav A., Subedi D., Lundeberg M.A., Bunting C.F., Problem-Based Learning: Influence on Students’ Learning in an Electrical Engineering Course, Journal of Engineering Education, 100, 2, (2011); Zhou C., Integrating Creativity Training into Problem and Project-Based Learning Curriculum in Engineering Education, European Journal of Engineering Education, 37, 5, pp. 488-499, (2012)
Nơi xuất bản
Routledge
Hình thức xuất bản
Article
Open Access
Nguồn
Scopus