How are undergraduate STEM instructors leveraging student thinking?
How are undergraduate STEM instructors leveraging student thinking?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/s40594-022-00336-0
复制
发表时间：
2022-02-16
影响因子：
6.7
通讯作者：
Andrews, Tessa C.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Gehrtz, Jessica;Brantner, Molly;Andrews, Tessa C.
背景STEM教师谁利用学生的思维可以积极影响学生的成绩，并建立自己的教学专业知识。利用学生的思维涉及使用学生思维的实质内容来告知教学。教师在本科STEM背景下利用学生思维的方式，以及是什么使他们能够有效地做到这一点，在很大程度上仍未被探索。我们调查了本科STEM教师如何在教学中利用学生的思维，重点关注在课堂上让学生参与工作的教师。结果通过分析八名本科STEM教师的访谈和课堂视频，我们确定了一组教师，他们表现出高水平的利用学生思维（高学习者）和一组教师，他们表现出低水平的利用学生思维（低学习者）。高智商学生的行为表现就好像学生思维是他们教学的核心。我们看到他们如何访问学生的想法，努力解释它，并在课堂上和课后做出回应。与低认知度的学生相比，高认知度的学生花了大约两倍的课堂时间来获取关于学生思维的详细信息。然后，高认知者根据他们对学生思维的理解，在一节课与另一节课之间改变教学计划。重要的是，高认知者也比低认知者更广泛地利用了学生思维的知识，这是教学内容知识的一个组成部分。高水平的学生利用学生思维的知识来创造更实质性的学生思维，塑造实时解释，并告知如何以及何时做出回应。相比之下，低认知者较少接触学生的思维，对学生的思维理解肤浅或根本不理解，从不讨论如何调整下一节课的内容或问题。结论这项研究表明，并不是所有在课堂上积极让学生参与工作的本科STEM教师也在利用学生的思维。换句话说，并非所有以学生为中心的教学都是以学生思维为中心的教学。我们讨论了为什么一些STEM教师利用学生的思维和其他人没有可能的解释。为了实现以学生为中心的教学对本科生的好处，我们可能需要支持本科STEM教师学习如何通过利用学生的思维从他们的教学经验中学习。
Background STEM instructors who leverage student thinking can positively influence student outcomes and build their own teaching expertise. Leveraging student thinking involves using the substance of student thinking to inform instruction. The ways in which instructors leverage student thinking in undergraduate STEM contexts, and what enables them to do so effectively, remains largely unexplored. We investigated how undergraduate STEM faculty leverage student thinking in their teaching, focusing on faculty who engage students in work during class. Results From analyzing interviews and video of a class lesson for eight undergraduate STEM instructors, we identified a group of instructors who exhibited high levels of leveraging student thinking (high-leveragers) and a group of instructors who exhibited low levels of leveraging student thinking (low-leveragers). High-leveragers behaved as if student thinking was central to their instruction. We saw this in how they accessed student thinking, worked to interpret it, and responded in the moment and after class. High-leveragers spent about twice as much class time getting access to detailed information about student thinking compared to low-leveragers. High-leveragers then altered instructional plans from lesson to lesson and during a lesson based on their interpretation of student thinking. Critically, high-leveragers also drew on much more extensive knowledge of student thinking, a component of pedagogical content knowledge, than did low-leveragers. High-leveragers used knowledge of student thinking to create access to more substantive student thinking, shape real-time interpretations, and inform how and when to respond. In contrast, low-leveragers accessed student thinking less frequently, interpreted student thinking superficially or not at all, and never discussed adjusting the content or problems for the following lesson. Conclusions This study revealed that not all undergraduate STEM instructors who actively engage students in work during class are also leveraging student thinking. In other words, not all student-centered instruction is student-thinking-centered instruction. We discuss possible explanations for why some STEM instructors are leveraging student thinking and others are not. In order to realize the benefits of student-centered instruction for undergraduates, we may need to support undergraduate STEM instructors in learning how to learn from their teaching experiences by leveraging student thinking.