Dokter Poster
Shared by: zMNeoq10
-
Stats
- views:
- 6
- posted:
- 11/8/2012
- language:
- Unknown
- pages:
- 1
Document Sample


Practice and Perception: A Qualitative Study Exploring the Effects of a Professional Development Workshop for College Astronomy Faculty*
Erin F.C. Dokter, The University of Arizona
Abstract
While faculty development resources abound, STEM-specific
Table 1. Preliminary Results and Conclusions
Pre-and post-workshop teaching strategies that best promote student learning with explanations
faculty development efforts are quite limited. The purpose of this
Pre-workshop Teaching Explanation Post-workshop Teaching Explanation
qualitative study was to explore and describe the influence of one Strategy Strategy Reported Teaching Conceptions
such effort, a 2-day learner-centered professional development
In-class activities that Has them directly learn Lecture-Tutorial Gives students focused
workshop for two- and four-year college astronomy faculty. In help them learn (not the material by making [Workshop strategy] activities that promote
particular, faculty conceptions of teaching and teaching practice, busy-work exercises) their own discoveries, their comprehension Immediately prior to and following the workshop, faculty
the conceptions of their students, as well as the teaching rather than just and extend their were asked to provide three instructional strategies that
conceptions of the faculty developers were examined. Data memorizing info understanding
promote students’ learning and explain how these
sources include open-ended, pre- and post-workshop
Out of class Forces them to really Think-Pair-Share Encourages interaction strategies did so.
questionnaires from over 200 astronomy faculty, teaching
assignments which have understand the material [Workshop strategy] and debate.
observations and interviews with five selected faculty, interviews them apply their by extending their
with the three faculty developers, as well as Likert and open- knowledge to new knowledge to a new
Following the workshop, faculty more frequently reported
ended surveys from over 300 introductory astronomy students. situations situation. workshop teaching strategies as those that promoted
Results document the individual goals of faculty as they student learning. The explanations for these strategies
participated in the workshop, the complexity of their teaching Group discussion Helps them realize what Clickers Good way to get
tended to be more simple, brief, and vague, but also
conceptions and practices, the range of student interpretations of they know and they can [Workshop strategy] immediate feedback and
teach that info to check attendance related to pre-workshop responses. (Table 1)
the teaching that goes on in their classrooms, as well as
someone else (& we all
documenting a change in teaching beliefs of the faculty know the way to really
developers from year to year. This study reveals that a common learn a subject is to Faculty may have changed their beliefs regarding
faculty development workshop experience has many and varied teach it)
the teaching strategies that best promote students’
outcomes that are highly individualized to the faculty who
learning, and made sense of these new strategies in
participate, that one success of this particular faculty development
program was its discipline-specificity, and that student reactions to terms of their “native” beliefs.
the enacted workshop teaching techniques were also highly
varied. Reported Teaching Practice
Between six and eighteen months after attending the
Research Question workshop, faculty were asked to complete an online
How do two- and four-year college astronomy survey about their use of workshop teaching strategies.
instructors incorporate the pedagogical tools Approximately two-thirds of respondents reported using
from a faculty development workshop into their workshop teaching strategies (Lecture Tutorials, Think-
Pair-Share, and Ranking Tasks) at least once in their
“native” teaching beliefs and practices?
current introductory astronomy classes. About one-third
reported using these at least once per week. (Table 2)
Figure 1. Reported frequency of use of teaching strategies by Astro 101 instructors (n=43)
Methodology Faculty reported incorporation of workshop
Table 2. teaching strategies into their teaching practice
This study utilizes a qualitative, case study design Reported barrier clusters, sample quotations, and frequencies (N=122)
following participation.
(Creswell, 1998, 2003). Participants include: Barrier Representative Quotations Frequency
Curriculum and “Assuming that the students have purchased the tutorial 38
Instruction book, the biggest problem seems to me to be classroom Reported Barriers to Change
•122 two- and four-year college astronomy management, and following through with the right kind of
assessment.”
instructors “Designing effective lectures to get students ready for Following the workshop, faculty were asked to select
•The three faculty developers Logistics
[Lecture-Tutorials]”
“Cost” 25
one of their reported post-workshop teaching strategies
•Five faculty “heavy adopters” of the workshop “The ability to write good questions” (Table 1) and report any obstacles to implementing that
Time “Getting a balance between lecture & tutorials in terms of 23 strategy. Most faculty reported one of the active learning
teaching strategies time.”
strategies taught in the workshop. These six themes
•316 introductory astronomy students enrolled in “Finding the time to do it AND be able to cover everything
that I still want to.” emerged, which are generally consistent with previous
the “heavy adopters” courses Personal “My inexperience with the strategy” 20 literature on reported barriers to change (e.g. Sunal,
“It takes time & energy to change.”
“Probably me. I am not always the best to work in groups Sunal, Whitaker, Freeman, Odell, Hodges, Edwards, &
Data sources include: myself” Johnston, 2001; Henderson & Dancy, 2007). As seen in
Student Response “Student resistance to any collaborative activity” 18
“Non-participation”
Table 2, over 75% of the barriers reported were external
• Open-ended pre- & post-workshop faculty surveys No Reported Barrier “None” 14 (e.g. time, logistical) rather than internal (e.g. personal).
• Fixed & open-ended post-workshop online surveys The distribution of types of barriers to implementation for
• Faculty developer interviews both workshop and other (i.e. “native”) teaching
• Workshop observations strategies were reported by faculty. As seen in Figure 2,
• Faculty interviews the distributions are quite similar, except where it came
• Classroom observations to logistical, personal, or no barriers. Workshop
• Likert & open-ended student surveys teaching strategies elicited more logistical and personal
barriers for respondents, while “native” teaching
strategies were much more likely to elicit no barriers.
Open-ended faculty survey questions and faculty
developer interviews were analyzed using the Faculty reported similar barriers to change as are
constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, seen in the literature. New teaching strategies
1967), clustering and counting (Miles & Huberman, elicited a greater incidence of perceived personal
1994), and connection circle visualization (Quaden and logistical barriers than “native” strategies.
& Ticotsky, 2005).
Figure 2. Comparison of self-reported barriers to implementing workshop & other teaching strategies *Note: This poster describes preliminary results. This study is ongoing.
(n=122)
Related docs
Other docs by zMNeoq10
The following files were incorrectly listed on the respective Public Notice PN Dates
Views: 0 | Downloads: 0
Get documents about "