Building Excellence in Scientific Teaching: How Important Is the Evidence for Evidence-Based Teaching when Training STEM TAs?
Building Excellence in Scientific Teaching: How Important Is the Evidence for Evidence-Based Teaching when Training STEM TAs?
复制标题
在科学教学方面建立卓越的卓越：在训练stem tas时，基于证据的教学的证据有多重要？
DOI：
10.1128/jmbe.v22i1.2473
复制
发表时间：
2021
影响因子：
1.9
通讯作者：
Cotner S
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Patrick LE;Barron HA;Brown JC;Cotner S
循证教学实践(EBTP)--如探究式学习、包容性教学和主动学习(AL)--已被证明有利于所有学生，特别是女性、第一代和传统上在科学领域的小规模学生。然而，很少有研究集中于如何最好地培训助教使用EBTP，或者专业发展的哪些组成部分是最重要的。我们设计并实验操作了一系列关于AL的预演工作坊，将受试者分为两组。活动小组以小组形式与研讨会主持人一起学习AL技术。然后，这些团队对这一活动进行建模，让他们的同龄人充当学生。在证据组，辅导员模拟所有助教作为学生的活动。我们使用混合方法的研究设计(特别是同时三角测量)来解释研讨会前、研讨会后和学期后的调查结果。我们发现，证据组参与者在研讨会结束后报告的AL知识比活动组参与者更多。另一方面，活动组参与者发现所有的AL技术都比证据组参与者更有用。这些结果表明，实际模拟AL技术使它们对助教更有用，而不是简单地体验与学生相同的技术--即使有附带的证据。这一结果对我们如何向助教和潜在的教职员工提供专业发展课程具有广泛的影响。
Evidence-based teaching practices (EBTP)—like inquiry-based learning, inclusive teaching, and active learning (AL)—have been shown to benefit all students, especially women, first-generation, and traditionally minoritized students in science fields. However, little research has focused on how best to train teaching assistants (TAs) to use EBTP or on which components of professional development are most important. We designed and experimentally manipulated a series of presemester workshops on AL, dividing subjects into two groups. The Activity group worked in teams to learn an AL technique with a workshop facilitator. These teams then modeled the activity, with their peers acting as students. In the Evidence group, facilitators modeled the activities with all TAs acting as students. We used a mixed-methods research design (specifically, concurrent triangulation) to interpret pre- and postworkshop and postsemester survey responses. We found that Evidence group participants reported greater knowledge of AL after the workshop than Activity group participants. Activity group participants, on the other hand, found all of the AL techniques more useful than Evidence group participants. These results suggest that actually modeling AL techniques made them more useful to TAs than simply experiencing the same techniques as students—even with the accompanying evidence. This outcome has broad implications for how we provide professional development sessions to TAs and potentially to faculty.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
3.7
作者：
DeChenne, Sue Ellen;Koziol, Natalie;Enochs, Larry
通讯作者：
Enochs, Larry
影响因子：
2.3
作者：
Doymus, Kemal
通讯作者：
Doymus, Kemal
影响因子：
3
作者：
Marbach-Ad, Gili;Schaefer, Kathryn L.;Doyle, Michael P.
通讯作者：
Doyle, Michael P.
影响因子：
3.7
作者：
Hughes PW;Ellefson MR
通讯作者：
Ellefson MR
影响因子：
2.1
作者：
Miller, Cynthia J.;Metz, Michael J.
通讯作者：
Metz, Michael J.