The Variation of Nontraditional Teaching Methods Across 17 Undergraduate Engineering Classrooms
The Variation of Nontraditional Teaching Methods Across 17 Undergraduate Engineering Classrooms
复制标题
17个本科工科课堂非传统教学方法的变化
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2017
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
C. Waters
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kevin Nguyen;R. DeMonbrun;M. Borrego;M. Prince;J. Husman;C. Finelli;Prateek Shekhar;C. Henderson;C. Waters
本研究旨在探讨美国工程类课程中非传统教学方法（如归纳教学法、主动学习法、参与学习法和基于研究的教学策略）的变化。许多文章已经证明了非传统教学方法在STEM课堂上的有效性，并且这种方法的采用在全国范围内有所增加。但是，需要做更多的工作来探索教师如何实施非传统的教学方法。在这项研究中，我们收集了来自全国各地的17个不同的工程教室的数据，并提出了两个研究问题：（1）什么是感知的主要类型的教学在本科工程教室，功能非传统的教学方法？(2)在以非传统教学方法为特色的本科工程课堂中，传统授课的感知量是否存在统计学上的显著差异？在我们的研究中，我们招募了教授本科工程课程的教师，他们采用非传统的教学方法，并邀请所有学生完成学生对教学实践的反应调查（StRIP）。StRIP调查的非传统教学方法包括个人和小组解决问题，课前预习概念和材料，以及在课堂上讨论问题。StRIP调查还包括传统的教学方法，如在课堂上听教师讲课或看教师解决问题。总的来说，我们的研究收集了2015-16学年17个工程类和997名学生的数据。为了回答我们的第一个问题，我们使用了以图形表示的非传统教学方法的描述性统计数据。为了回答第二个问题，我们进行了Kruskal-Wallis H检验，以检验类别之间的统计学显著差异。尽管所有的班级都被抽样调查了他们的非传统教学方法，但许多班级仍然将传统教学方法与非传统教学方法结合起来。传统的教学方法，如被动的讲座是最常用的教学方法，在17个班级中的10个。然而，关于我们的第二个研究问题，学生对基于课程的被动讲座的感知存在统计学显著差异，Kruskal-Wallis χ = 394.3，df = 16，p < 0.001。我们的研究结果表明，工程教师在课堂上使用多种类型的活动，并标记为非传统或主动学习为基础的整个课程可能是有问题的，因为有很多变化和细微差别，发生在工程教室。此外，我们发现，大多数类包括传统和非传统的教学方法的混合，并在本科工程课堂实施非传统的教学方法并不总是意味着放弃讲座。我们未来的工作涉及探讨教师如何实施这些活动，这些教学方法如何涉及到学生的评价的教师，以及如何教师的专业发展可以用来帮助教师实施活动，以及相关的感知使用的教学方法机构的人口统计，教师的性别，课程类型，和其他特点。
This research paper aims to explore the variation of nontraditional teaching methods (such as inductive teaching methods, active learning, pedagogies of engagement, and research based instructional strategies) in engineering classes in the United States. Numerous articles have demonstrated the effectiveness of nontraditional teaching methods in STEM classrooms, and the adoption of such methods has increased across the nation. But, more work needs to be done to explore how instructors are implementing nontraditional teaching methods. In this research study, we collected data from 17 diverse engineering classrooms across the nation and ask two research questions: (1) What are the perceived predominant types of instruction in undergraduate engineering classrooms that feature nontraditional teaching methods? (2) Is there a statistically significant difference in the perceived amount of traditional lecturing in undergraduate engineering classrooms that feature nontraditional teaching methods? In our study, we recruited faculty teaching undergraduate engineering courses who employed nontraditional teaching methods and invited all students to complete the Student Response to Instructional Practices Survey (StRIP). Nontraditional teaching methods on the StRIP Survey included items such as individual and group problem solving, previewing concepts and material before class, and discussing questions in class. The StRIP Survey also included traditional teaching methods such as listening to the instructor lecture during class or watching the instructor solve problems. In total, our study collected data from 17 engineering classes, and 997 students during the 2015-16 academic year. To answer our first question, we used descriptive statistics of nontraditional teaching methods displayed in a graphical representation. To answer the second question, we conducted a Kruskal-Wallis H test to test for a statistically significant difference between classes. Even though all classes were sampled for their nontraditional teaching methods, many still incorporated traditional teaching methods alongside their nontraditional teaching methods. Traditional teaching methods such as passive lecture were the most frequently used teaching approach in 10 of the 17 classes. However, alluding to our second research question, there was a statistically significant difference in students’ perception of passive lecture based by course, Kruskal-Wallis χ = 394.3, df = 16, p < 0.001. Our results indicate that engineering instructors use multiple types of activities across classrooms, and labeling an entire course as nontraditional or active learning based may be problematic, as there is much variation and nuances that occurs in engineering classrooms. Furthermore, we find that most classes include a mix of traditional and nontraditional teaching methods, and implementing nontraditional teaching methods in the undergraduate engineering classroom does not always imply abandoning lecture. Our future work involves exploring how instructors implement these activities, how these teaching methods relate to students’ evaluation of the instructor, and how faculty professional development can be used to help instructors implement activities as well as relating perceived use of teaching methods to institutional demographics, instructor’s gender, course types, and other characteristics.