Abstrakt
Background: Despite large-class research-based instructional strategies being firmly established in the literature, traditional teacher-centred lecturing remains the norm. This is particularly the case in physics, where Physics Education Research (PER) has blossomed as a discipline in its own right over the last few decades, but research-based strategies are not widely implemented. This variation in practice is underpinned by variations in beliefs and understandings about teaching. Studies investigating the spectrum of conceptions of teaching held by teachers and, in particular, academics have almost uniformly identified a single dimension from teacher-centred to student-centred. These studies have used a phenomenographic approach to capture the variety of conceptions of teaching, but have excluded contextual issues like class size.
Research Question: How does class size affect academics’ conceptions of teaching?
Method: This study used an online survey to compare and contrast respondents’ experiences of small and large classes, and in particular lectures. The survey was promoted to Australian university academics from a range of disciplines, predominantly science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Responses to the sets of small-class questions were analysed independently from the sets of equivalent large-class questions. For each respondent their small-class responses were categorised, where possible, as either being student-centred or teacher-centred, and likewise, independently, for their large-class responses.
Results: In total, 107 survey responses were received. Of these, 51 had the sets of both their large- and small-class responses unambiguously categorised. Five of these were student-centred regardless of class size, and 17 of these were teacher-centred regardless of class size. All of the remaining 29 responses were teacher-centred in large classes, but student-centred in small classes. Conversely, none of the responses corresponded to a conception of teaching that was student-centred in large classes and teacher-centred in small classes.
Implications: This result demonstrates that the one-dimensional analysis of conceptions of teaching along the spectrum of teacher-centred to student-centred is too simplistic. Conceptions are contextual. At the very least they depend on class size, and perhaps other factors.
It confirms the hierarchy of understanding from teacher-centred to student-centred reported elsewhere in the literature, with the added feature of an intermediate stage of differing focus depending on class size. One recommendation from this finding is that teaching professional development programs should be focused on developing studentcentred conceptions and practices in large classes in particular, as this occurs infrequently but leads to the best student learning outcomes. Moreover, further research on contextspecific conceptions of teaching need to be explored.
Research Question: How does class size affect academics’ conceptions of teaching?
Method: This study used an online survey to compare and contrast respondents’ experiences of small and large classes, and in particular lectures. The survey was promoted to Australian university academics from a range of disciplines, predominantly science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Responses to the sets of small-class questions were analysed independently from the sets of equivalent large-class questions. For each respondent their small-class responses were categorised, where possible, as either being student-centred or teacher-centred, and likewise, independently, for their large-class responses.
Results: In total, 107 survey responses were received. Of these, 51 had the sets of both their large- and small-class responses unambiguously categorised. Five of these were student-centred regardless of class size, and 17 of these were teacher-centred regardless of class size. All of the remaining 29 responses were teacher-centred in large classes, but student-centred in small classes. Conversely, none of the responses corresponded to a conception of teaching that was student-centred in large classes and teacher-centred in small classes.
Implications: This result demonstrates that the one-dimensional analysis of conceptions of teaching along the spectrum of teacher-centred to student-centred is too simplistic. Conceptions are contextual. At the very least they depend on class size, and perhaps other factors.
It confirms the hierarchy of understanding from teacher-centred to student-centred reported elsewhere in the literature, with the added feature of an intermediate stage of differing focus depending on class size. One recommendation from this finding is that teaching professional development programs should be focused on developing studentcentred conceptions and practices in large classes in particular, as this occurs infrequently but leads to the best student learning outcomes. Moreover, further research on contextspecific conceptions of teaching need to be explored.
Reference
- Abdul, B. et al. (2011). Addressing student learning barriers in developing nations with Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- a novel hands-on active pedagogy and miniaturized industrial process equipment: The Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- case of Nigeria. International Journal of Engineering Education, 27(2), 458–476. Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- Bowden, J.A. & Walsh, E. (Eds.). (2000). Phenomenography. Melbourne: RMIT Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- University Press. Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- Bradburn, N.M. (1978). Respondent burden. In Proceedings of the American Statistical Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- Association (Survey Research Methods Section), 35–40. Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- Cahyadi, V. (2004). The effect of interactive engagement teaching on student Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- understanding of introductory physics at the faculty of engineering, University of Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- Surabaya, Indonesia.Higher Education Research & Development, 23(4), 455–464. Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- Choi, B.C.K. & Pak, A.W. P. (2005). A catalog of biases in questionnaires. Preventing Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- chronic disease, 2(1), 1–13. Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- Clason, D. L. & Dormody, T. J. (1994). Analyzing data measured by individual Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- likert-type items. Journal of Agricultural Education, 35(4), 31–35. Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- Daniel, S.A. (2016). Experiences of lecturing. PhD, Swinburne University of Technology. Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- Daniel, S.A., Mann, L. M.W. & Mazzolini, A. P. (2016). A phenomenography of Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- lecturing. 44th SEFI Conference. Tampere, Finland. Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- Deslauriers, L., Schelew, E. & Wieman, C. (2011). Improved learning in a Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- large-enrollment physics class. Science, 332(6031), 862–864. Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- FitzPatrick, K. A., Finn, K.E., & Campisi, J. (2011). Effect of personal response systems Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- on student perception and academic performance in courses in a health sciences Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- curriculum. Advances in Physiology Education, 35(3), 280–289. Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- Fowler, J. & Jackson, F. (1992). How unclear terms affect survey data. Public Opinion Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- Quarterly, 56(2), 218–231. Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- Hake, R.R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64–74. Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- Henderson, C. (2004). Easier said than done: A case study of instructional change under Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- the best of circumstances. In Proceedings of the 2003 Physics Education Research Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- Conference, Madison, Wisconsin. New York: American Institute of Physics. Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- Henderson, C., Beach, A. & Finkelstein, N. (2011). Facilitating change in undergraduate Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- STEM instructional practices: An analytic review of the literature. Journal of Research Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- in Science Teaching, 48, 952–984. Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- Ho, A., Watkins, D. & Kelly, M. (2001). The conceptual change approach to improving Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- teaching and learning: An evaluation of a Hong Kong staff development programme. Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- Higher Education, 42(2), 143–169. Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- Horton, B.W. (2001). Shifting from the sage on stage to the guide on the side: the Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- impact on student learning and course evaluations. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- Education, 13(5), 26–34. Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- Hussain, A., Azeem, M. & Shakoor, A. (2011). Physics teaching methods: scientific Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- inquiry vs traditional lecture. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- (19), 269–276. Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- Kember, D. (1997). A reconceptualisation of the research into university academics’ Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- conceptions of teaching. Learning and Instruction, 7(3), 255–275. Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- King, A. & Leigh, A. (2009). Are ballot order effects heterogeneous? Social Science Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- Quarterly, 90(1), 71–87. Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- Krosnick, J.A. (1991). Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- attitude measures in surveys. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5(3), 213–236. Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- Krosnick, J.A. et al. (2002). The impact of ‘no opinion’ response options on data Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- quality: Non-attitude reduction or an invitation to satisfice? Public Opinion Quarterly, Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- (3), 371–403. Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- Marton, F. (1981). Phenomenography — Describing conceptions of the world around us. Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- Instructional Science, 10(2), 177–200. Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- Marton, F. (1986). Phenomenography — A Research approach to investigating different Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- understandings of reality. Journal of Thought, 21(3), 28–49. Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- Masikunas, G., Panayiotidis, A. & Burke, L. (2007). The use of electronic voting systems Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- in lectures within business and marketing: a case study of their impact on student Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- learning. Research in Learning Technology, 15(1), 3–20. Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: a user’s manual. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall. Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- McKenzie, J.A. (2003). Variation and change in university teachers’ ways of Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- experiencing teaching. Sydney: University of Technology. Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- Murray, K. & Macdonald, R. (1997). The disjunction between lecturers’ conceptions of Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- teaching and their claimed educational practice. Higher Education, 33(3), 331–349. Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- Nunn, C. E. (1996). Discussion in the college classroom: Triangulating observational and Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- survey results. Journal of Higher Education, 67(3), 243–266. Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- Postareff, L. & Lindblom-Yl¨anne, S. (2008). Variation in teachers’ descriptions of Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- teaching: Broadening the understanding of teaching in higher education. Learning and Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- Instruction, 18(2), 109–120. Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231. Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- Prosser, M. & Trigwell, K. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis of the approaches to Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- teaching inventory. Br J Educ Psychol, 76(2), 405–419. Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- Samuelowicz, K. & Bain, J. D. (2001). Revisiting academics’ beliefs about teaching and Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- learning. Higher Education, 41(3), 299–325. Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- Schuman, H. & Presser, S. (1996). Questions and answers in attitude surveys: Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- experiments on question form, wording, and context. New York: Academic Press. Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- Schwarz, N. & Sudman, S. (Eds.). (1992). Context effects in social and psychological Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- research. New York: Springer-Verlag. Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- Skovsmose, O., Valero, P.& Christensen, O. (Eds.). (2009). University science and Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- mathematics education in transition. New York: Springer. Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- Steinbock, D. (2006). Tag Crowd. Available at http://tagcrowd.com/ Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- Trigwell, K. & Prosser, M. (1996). Congruence between intention and strategy in Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- university science teachers’ approaches to teaching. Higher Education, 32(1), 77–87. Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- Trigwell, K. & Prosser, M. (2004). Development and use of the approaches to teaching Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- inventory. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 409–424. Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- Trigwell, K., Prosser, M. & Ginns, P. (2005). Phenomenographic pedagogy and a revised Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- approaches to teaching inventory. Higher Education Research & Development, 24(4), Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- –360. Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- Trigwell, K., Prosser, M. & Waterhouse, F. (1997). Relations between teachers’ Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- approaches to teaching and students’ approaches to learning. Higher Education, 37(1), Vyhledej v Google Scholar
- –70. Vyhledej v Google Scholar
Stažení
1
- A phenomenographic outcome space for ways of experiencing lecturinghttps://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2021.1872055
0
3
4
Údaje o počtu stažení nejsou zatím k dispozici.