Faculty Perceptions of the Implementation of Flipped Teaching in Undergraduate STEM Courses Across Two Institutions
Faculty Perceptions of the Implementation of Flipped Teaching in Undergraduate STEM Courses Across Two Institutions
复制标题
两所院校本科STEM课程实施翻转教学的教师感受
DOI：
10.1096/fasebj.2020.34.s1.04602
复制
发表时间：
2020
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Gopalan, Chaya
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Givens, Adriana;Bracey, Georgia;Fickas, Julie;Bartels, Lynn;Locke, Sharon;Gopalan, Chaya
翻转课堂是一种主动的学习和教学环境，已被证明可以提高学生的参与度，从而提高学生的表现。为了扩大翻转教学 (FT) 在 STEM 课堂中的使用，我们从两个机构招募了教职人员，其中六名教职人员来自当地社区学院，另外六名教职人员来自一所地区州立大学。我们特别感兴趣的是教师如何看待 FT 的实施、实施 FT 的障碍以及四年制大学和两年制社区学院 FT 实施的差异。所有 12 名教职员工参加了整个学期的六场教职员工发展 FT 研讨会。在接受培训的同时，参与者预计将在下学期为实施 FT 做准备。两家机构的实施前调查数据显示，12 名教师中有 6 名对 FT 持强烈赞成态度，12 名教师中有 4 名强烈同意他们拥有使用 FT 的知识。当考虑实施 FT 时，六分之四的社区学院教师和六分之二的大学教师强烈同意他们能够成功实施 FT。两家机构的参与者在实施前调查中指出，导致 FT 实施遇到阻力的一个常见障碍是缺乏实施时间。大学教师特别指出的其他障碍包括缺乏实施 FT 的知识以及预计学生的潜在阻力。实施后的调查数据显示，大学教师对 FT 的态度从 6 分之 3 上升到 6 分 5 分，而社区大学教师的态度则保持在 6 分 3 分。大学教师对使用 FT 的了解从 6 分 2 分上升到 6 分 6 分，社区大学教师从 6 分 2 分上升到 6 分 5 分。此外，大学教师对成功实施的看法从六分之二上升到六分之五，而社区大学教师则保持不变，为六分之四。两家机构的教师通过实施后调查发现了多重障碍，包括缺乏实施时间、与实施、评分和班级规模相关的知识有限。大学教师特别指出的另一个障碍是预期学生的潜在抵制。解决这些障碍对于允许使用主动学习方法（例如 FT）至关重要。支持或资助信息国家科学基金会
The flipped classroom is an active learning and teaching environment that has been shown to improve student engagement and thus student performance. In order to expand the use of flipped teaching (FT) in STEM classrooms, we recruited faculty members from two institutions, six faculty from a local community college and an additional six from a regional state university. We were particularly interested in how faculty perceived the implementation of FT, barriers in the implementation of FT, and the differences in FT implementation at a four‐year university and a two‐year community college. All 12 faculty members participated in six faculty development FT workshops, that were spread over an entire semester. While undergoing training, the participants were expected to be preparing for their implementation of FT during the following semester. Pre‐implementation survey data from both institutions showed that 6 out of 12 faculty had a strongly favorable attitude toward FT and 4 out of 12 strongly agreed that they possessed the knowledge to use FT. When implementation of FT was considered, 4 out of 6 community college faculty and 2 out of 6 university faculty strongly agreed that they could successfully implement FT. One common barrier contributing to the resistance in the implementation of FT as identified by the participants at both institutions in the pre‐implementation survey was the lack of time to implement. Additional barriers identified specifically by the university faculty included lacking the knowledge to implement FT as well as anticipating potential resistance from students. Post‐implementation survey data showed that university faculty attitudes toward FT increased from 3 out of 6 to 5 out of 6 while community college faculty’s attitudes remained at 3 out of 6. There was an increase in knowledge of using FT from 2 out of 6 to 6 out of 6 by university faculty and from 2 out of 6 to 5 out of 6 by community college faculty. Additionally, faculty perceptions of successful implementation increased from 2 out of 6 to 5 out of 6 by university faculty and remained unchanged at 4 out of 6 among community college faculty. Multiple barriers were identified through post‐implementation survey by faculty from both institutions which included lacking the time to implement, limited knowledge related to implementation, grading, and class sizes. An additional barrier identified specifically by the university faculty was anticipating potential resistance from students. Addressing these barriers is critical in allowing the use of active learning methodologies such as FT.Support or Funding InformationNational Science Foundation