Overview of faculty learning communities
Overview of faculty learning communities
复制标题
教师学习社区概述
DOI：
10.1002/tl.130
复制
发表时间：
2004
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
A. Essington
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
L. Richlin;A. Essington
方法于2003年夏末和秋季对FLCs进行搜索。它涉及一个迭代过程，以确保收集的信息描述了实际的flc，而不是其他类型的程序。寻找设有外语教学中心的院校。第一个任务是确定拥有FLCs的学术机构。调查人员从一个包含两万多名对学院和大学教学感兴趣的教员和管理人员的数据库中，创建了一个名单，列出了在过去十年内信息更新过的人，以及有记录的电子邮件地址的人。2003年8月7日，向该名单上的9,302人、专业和组织发展网络（美国）名单上的1,194名成员以及高等教育教与学学会（加拿大）名单上的700多名成员发出了电子邮件邀请，邀请他们将自己的flc列入本卷的名单。在对这封电子邮件的回应中，来自165个机构的168人表示，他们的机构有flc，他们有兴趣将这些flc列入名单。使用SurveyMonkey (http://www。调查猴子。com)，我们于2003年8月19日创建并向168名受访者发送了一份在线调查，询问以下信息：该机构在2000年之前和2000年至2003年之间的基于队列和基于主题的FLCs类型，当前（2003-04）FLCs和未来FLCs；当前FLC的详细信息，包括类型（基于队列的或基于主题的）、标题、主持人、参与者人数、会议频率、大致预算、计划的活动以及每个FLC的开始和结束日期；以及被调查者的人口统计信息。在确定有FLCs的机构和获取数据方面存在一些困难。首先，在所有的校园里，没有一种类型的办公室可以联系到。一些机构在校园的多个地方创建和支持FLC，一些受访者不知道他们的机构有额外的FLC项目，所以我们有来自一个机构的不止一个受访者向我们提供信息。毫无疑问，一些收件人可能没有意识到他们的校园里确实有flc，而这些校园并没有代表。许多收信人将调查结果转交给他们所在机构的其他人，他们认为这些人更有可能掌握信息。第二个挑战是FLC的定义。在最初的调查和调查本身中，FLC被定义为“一群教职员工（通常在6到15人之间，推荐8到12人），他们参加为期一年的项目，课程内容是关于提高教与学，并经常举办研讨会和活动。
Method The search for FLCs was conducted during the late summer and fall of 2003. It involved an iterative process to be certain that the information collected described actual FLCs and not other types of programs. Finding Institutions with FLCs. The first task was to identify academic institutions that have FLCs. From a database of over twenty thousand faculty and administrators interested in college and university teaching, the investigators created a list of people whose information had been updated within the past ten years and who had an e-mail address on record. An e-mail invitation to have their FLCs included in a listing for this volume was sent on August 7, 2003, to 9,302 people on that list, as well as to the 1,194 members of the listserv of the Professional and Organizational Development Network (United States) and over seven hundred members of the listserv of the Society for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (Canada). In response to that e-mail message, 168 people from 165 institutions indicated that there were FLCs at their institution and that they were interested in having them listed. Using SurveyMonkey (http://www. surveymonkey. com), we created and sent an online survey to the 168 respondents on August 19, 2003, asking for the following information: types of cohortbased and topic-based FLCs that the institution had before 2000 and between 2000 and 2003, current (2003-04) FLCs, and future FLCs; details of current FLCs, including the type (cohort-based or topic-based), title, facilitator, number of participants, frequency of meetings, approximate budget, planned activities, and beginning and ending dates for each FLC; and demographic information on the respondent. There are several difficulties in identifying institutions with FLCs and obtaining data. The first is that there is no single type of office on all campuses that could be contacted. Some institutions had FLCs created and supported in more than one place on campus, and some respondents were not aware that there were additional FLC programs at their institutions, so we had more than one respondent from an institution providing information to us. Undoubtedly, some recipients may not have realized that they did have FLCs on their campuses, and those campuses are not represented. Many recipients passed the survey on to others at their institution whom they identified as being more likely to have information. The second challenge is in the definition of an FLC. In the original inquiry and in the survey itself, an FLC was defined as" a group of faculty and staff (usually between six and fifteen, eight to twelve recommended) who engage in a year-long program with a curriculum about enhancing teaching and learning and with frequent seminars and activities that provide