Pub Date : 2023-10-16DOI: 10.20343/teachlearninqu.11.28
Jennifer Löfgreen
Although there is ample literature that explores what SoTL is and offers guidelines on how to do SoTL, we have not paid enough attention to the fundamental assumptions that underpin systematic scholarly inquiry itself, regardless of the context or the object of study. Instead, we seem to have a narrative that relates SoTL to the disciplines and/or educational research. In this paper, I challenge this narrative with the help of philosophy of science. Specifically, I argue that SoTL is at risk of being appropriated by disciplinary paradigms. This means we would do well to adjust how we conceptualize SoTL. To find a better way, I use Habermas’ concept of knowledge-constitutive interests to argue that we should start by recognizing the fundamental interests at play when we do SoTL, regardless of disciplinary context. I connect Habermas’ three interests (instrumental, interpretive, and emancipatory) to Hutchings’ taxonomy of SoTL questions (what works? what is? and what could be?) and to three basic paradigms of inquiry (normative, interpretive, and critical realist). These connections show how philosophy of science in the form of Habermas’ critical theory can combine with existing conceptual literature on SoTL and established paradigms of inquiry that exist independently of the disciplines. I aim to show that we can use philosophy of science to conceptualize SoTL in a way that allows it to stand fully on its own merits, as its own form of inquiry, with disciplinary perspectives only influencing it in appropriate and useful ways.
{"title":"Navigating between Scylla and Charybdis: SoTL as its Own Kind of Inquiry","authors":"Jennifer Löfgreen","doi":"10.20343/teachlearninqu.11.28","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.11.28","url":null,"abstract":"Although there is ample literature that explores what SoTL is and offers guidelines on how to do SoTL, we have not paid enough attention to the fundamental assumptions that underpin systematic scholarly inquiry itself, regardless of the context or the object of study. Instead, we seem to have a narrative that relates SoTL to the disciplines and/or educational research. In this paper, I challenge this narrative with the help of philosophy of science. Specifically, I argue that SoTL is at risk of being appropriated by disciplinary paradigms. This means we would do well to adjust how we conceptualize SoTL. To find a better way, I use Habermas’ concept of knowledge-constitutive interests to argue that we should start by recognizing the fundamental interests at play when we do SoTL, regardless of disciplinary context. I connect Habermas’ three interests (instrumental, interpretive, and emancipatory) to Hutchings’ taxonomy of SoTL questions (what works? what is? and what could be?) and to three basic paradigms of inquiry (normative, interpretive, and critical realist). These connections show how philosophy of science in the form of Habermas’ critical theory can combine with existing conceptual literature on SoTL and established paradigms of inquiry that exist independently of the disciplines. I aim to show that we can use philosophy of science to conceptualize SoTL in a way that allows it to stand fully on its own merits, as its own form of inquiry, with disciplinary perspectives only influencing it in appropriate and useful ways.","PeriodicalId":44633,"journal":{"name":"Teaching & Learning Inquiry-The ISSOTL Journal","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136112719","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-16DOI: 10.20343/teachlearninqu.11.27
Irma Meijerman, Femke Kirschner, Frans Prins
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) is a fast-maturing field of study within many research-intensive universities. SoTL improves the quality of teaching, the professional development of teachers, and the recognition and appreciation of education. To encourage SoTL, it is important to know how to support teachers. This study describes two pilot initiatives with the goal to encourage and support teachers at a research-intensive university with their first SoTL project. In both pilots, a community of practice (CoP) approach was used. The experiences with the pilots were investigated with questionnaires and interviews. Based on the feedback of participants, albeit with some caution because of the relatively small sample size of this study, suggestions for future initiatives that support teachers new to SoTL at research-intensive institutes are: 1) the use of a combination of a CoP and individual guidance by experienced SoTL facilitators; 2) the creation of opportunities for formal and informal interaction to strengthen the CoP; 3) encouraging participants to work together on (shared) aligned projects; 4) the provision of structured course elements with guided discussions; 5) the provision of theoretical support regarding the principles of SoTL, for example, finding and interpreting literature, formulating a research question, and choosing the research methodology; 6) structure the inclusion of students’ participations, perspectives, and roles in SoTL; 7) some form of obligation, such as an official status of the initiative; and 8) institutional support, such as providing recognition, time, and financial support. The lessons learned in this study have relevance for all universities seeking to embrace, encourage, and support SoTL, especially for those initiating their first SoTL-supporting activities.
{"title":"Experiences with Supporting Teachers with Scholarship of Teaching and Learning at a Research-Intensive University: Lessons Learned","authors":"Irma Meijerman, Femke Kirschner, Frans Prins","doi":"10.20343/teachlearninqu.11.27","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.11.27","url":null,"abstract":"Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) is a fast-maturing field of study within many research-intensive universities. SoTL improves the quality of teaching, the professional development of teachers, and the recognition and appreciation of education. To encourage SoTL, it is important to know how to support teachers. This study describes two pilot initiatives with the goal to encourage and support teachers at a research-intensive university with their first SoTL project. In both pilots, a community of practice (CoP) approach was used. The experiences with the pilots were investigated with questionnaires and interviews. Based on the feedback of participants, albeit with some caution because of the relatively small sample size of this study, suggestions for future initiatives that support teachers new to SoTL at research-intensive institutes are: 1) the use of a combination of a CoP and individual guidance by experienced SoTL facilitators; 2) the creation of opportunities for formal and informal interaction to strengthen the CoP; 3) encouraging participants to work together on (shared) aligned projects; 4) the provision of structured course elements with guided discussions; 5) the provision of theoretical support regarding the principles of SoTL, for example, finding and interpreting literature, formulating a research question, and choosing the research methodology; 6) structure the inclusion of students’ participations, perspectives, and roles in SoTL; 7) some form of obligation, such as an official status of the initiative; and 8) institutional support, such as providing recognition, time, and financial support. The lessons learned in this study have relevance for all universities seeking to embrace, encourage, and support SoTL, especially for those initiating their first SoTL-supporting activities.","PeriodicalId":44633,"journal":{"name":"Teaching & Learning Inquiry-The ISSOTL Journal","volume":"28 3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136113899","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-09-22DOI: 10.20343/teachlearninqu.11.25
Peter Doolittle, Krista Wojdak, Amanda Walters
What is active learning? While active learning has been demonstrated to have positive impacts on student learning and performance, defining the concept has been elusive. Previous research examining active learning definitions in STEM fields found that the vast majority of published articles did not define active learning, and those that did defined active learning as interacting, engaging, or not lecturing. The current research extends this STEM-focused work by examining both social science and STEM science publications. A restricted systematic review of literature was conducted using the SCOPUS database, resulting in 547 relevant articles focused on active learning from 2017 to 2022. An examination of the articles indicated that 71% of the reviewed articles did not define active learning and that the instructional strategies most often cited as fostering active learning emphasized social interactive learning strategies (e.g., small groups, team-based learning, discussion, and cooperative learning), as well as critical thinking strategies (e.g., problem-based learning, case-based learning, and inquiry-based learning). In addition, an in-depth qualitative analysis of the 161 definitions provided within the articles yielded three main emergent themes: (a) active learning is defined as grounded in student-centered constructivist theory, (b) active learning is defined as promoting higher-order thinking and deep learning, and (c) active learning is defined as an instructional strategy involving activity, participation, and engagement. Given these main findings, a representative definition was created: Active learning is a student-centered approach to the construction of knowledge focused on activities and strategies that foster higher-order thinking.
{"title":"Defining Active Learning: A Restricted Systemic Review","authors":"Peter Doolittle, Krista Wojdak, Amanda Walters","doi":"10.20343/teachlearninqu.11.25","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.11.25","url":null,"abstract":"What is active learning? While active learning has been demonstrated to have positive impacts on student learning and performance, defining the concept has been elusive. Previous research examining active learning definitions in STEM fields found that the vast majority of published articles did not define active learning, and those that did defined active learning as interacting, engaging, or not lecturing. The current research extends this STEM-focused work by examining both social science and STEM science publications. A restricted systematic review of literature was conducted using the SCOPUS database, resulting in 547 relevant articles focused on active learning from 2017 to 2022. An examination of the articles indicated that 71% of the reviewed articles did not define active learning and that the instructional strategies most often cited as fostering active learning emphasized social interactive learning strategies (e.g., small groups, team-based learning, discussion, and cooperative learning), as well as critical thinking strategies (e.g., problem-based learning, case-based learning, and inquiry-based learning). In addition, an in-depth qualitative analysis of the 161 definitions provided within the articles yielded three main emergent themes: (a) active learning is defined as grounded in student-centered constructivist theory, (b) active learning is defined as promoting higher-order thinking and deep learning, and (c) active learning is defined as an instructional strategy involving activity, participation, and engagement. Given these main findings, a representative definition was created: Active learning is a student-centered approach to the construction of knowledge focused on activities and strategies that foster higher-order thinking.","PeriodicalId":44633,"journal":{"name":"Teaching & Learning Inquiry-The ISSOTL Journal","volume":"148 11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136060777","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In this paper, we present and reflect on using scenarios and role-plays as an effective approach to engaging in the often complicated conversations about student-faculty/staff partnerships, particularly those involving the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL). Students as co-developers of pedagogical processes, as well as co-researchers in SoTL, has become an increasingly valued practice in higher education institutions around the world, one that promises to be transformative in its pursuit to break down the traditional hierarchies and establish more democratic and equitable relationships between faculty/staff and students. While there is a growing body of evidence that demonstrates the value of creating spaces and processes to enhance teaching and learning, it can be challenging to know how to develop and implement partnership in SoTL. How do we actually do it? Many of us need guidance for where and how to get started, how to build effective partnerships, how to work through difficulties, how to share our experiences, and how to invite others into this practice. Informed by our own experiences of engaging in pedagogical SoTL partnerships and drawing upon materials developed for a conference workshop we delivered at the 2019 International Society for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (ISSOTL) conference, we argue that scenarios and role-plays, when informed by the principles of Scenario Based Learning (SBL), are effective tools that help explore partnership experiences of faculty/staff and students. We offer considerations for how readers can adopt and adapt scenarios in their contexts and invite further research on the ways SBL contributes to SoTL and partnership.
{"title":"Using Scenarios to Explore the Complexity of Student-Faculty Partnership","authors":"Cherie Woolmer, Nattalia Godbold, Isabel Treanor, Natalie McCray, Ketevan Kupatadze, Peter Felten, Catherine Bovill","doi":"10.20343/teachlearninqu.11.26","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.11.26","url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, we present and reflect on using scenarios and role-plays as an effective approach to engaging in the often complicated conversations about student-faculty/staff partnerships, particularly those involving the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL). Students as co-developers of pedagogical processes, as well as co-researchers in SoTL, has become an increasingly valued practice in higher education institutions around the world, one that promises to be transformative in its pursuit to break down the traditional hierarchies and establish more democratic and equitable relationships between faculty/staff and students. While there is a growing body of evidence that demonstrates the value of creating spaces and processes to enhance teaching and learning, it can be challenging to know how to develop and implement partnership in SoTL. How do we actually do it? Many of us need guidance for where and how to get started, how to build effective partnerships, how to work through difficulties, how to share our experiences, and how to invite others into this practice. Informed by our own experiences of engaging in pedagogical SoTL partnerships and drawing upon materials developed for a conference workshop we delivered at the 2019 International Society for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (ISSOTL) conference, we argue that scenarios and role-plays, when informed by the principles of Scenario Based Learning (SBL), are effective tools that help explore partnership experiences of faculty/staff and students. We offer considerations for how readers can adopt and adapt scenarios in their contexts and invite further research on the ways SBL contributes to SoTL and partnership.","PeriodicalId":44633,"journal":{"name":"Teaching & Learning Inquiry-The ISSOTL Journal","volume":"60 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136060781","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-20DOI: 10.20343/teachlearninqu.11.18
Trent W. Maurer, Emily Cabay
We replicated and extended Maurer and Shipp’s (2021) intervention to teach students the successive relearning study strategy and encourage its use in preparation for course exams. This mixed-methods project was conducted in partnership between the faculty member teaching the course and an undergraduate student enrolled in the course. Results were similar to those reported by Maurer and Shipp (2021) but differed in meaningful ways. In this investigation, students reported more spaced practice in studying for the exam, demonstrated both greater confidence and greater mastery of the targeted course concept and closer alignment of confidence and mastery. They also reported greater unprompted metacognitive awareness of their own need to learn better study strategies. Qualitative responses from students aligned with the recommendation from SoTL literature that interventions to teach students to adopt more effective study methods need to both provide information and research evidence about more effective methods to students. The responses also aligned with the recommendation from SoTL literature to scaffold students through how to use the methods with opportunities to practice them. Time management issues emerged as the largest student-identified barrier to adopting successive relearning.
{"title":"Challenges of Shaping Student Study Strategies for Success: Replication and Extension","authors":"Trent W. Maurer, Emily Cabay","doi":"10.20343/teachlearninqu.11.18","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.11.18","url":null,"abstract":"We replicated and extended Maurer and Shipp’s (2021) intervention to teach students the successive relearning study strategy and encourage its use in preparation for course exams. This mixed-methods project was conducted in partnership between the faculty member teaching the course and an undergraduate student enrolled in the course. Results were similar to those reported by Maurer and Shipp (2021) but differed in meaningful ways. In this investigation, students reported more spaced practice in studying for the exam, demonstrated both greater confidence and greater mastery of the targeted course concept and closer alignment of confidence and mastery. They also reported greater unprompted metacognitive awareness of their own need to learn better study strategies. Qualitative responses from students aligned with the recommendation from SoTL literature that interventions to teach students to adopt more effective study methods need to both provide information and research evidence about more effective methods to students. The responses also aligned with the recommendation from SoTL literature to scaffold students through how to use the methods with opportunities to practice them. Time management issues emerged as the largest student-identified barrier to adopting successive relearning.","PeriodicalId":44633,"journal":{"name":"Teaching & Learning Inquiry-The ISSOTL Journal","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135139381","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-16DOI: 10.20343/teachlearninqu.11.5
Mick Healey, Ruth Healey
There are few sources that critically evaluate the ways of reviewing the literature on scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL). We use an academic literacies perspective as a lens with which to explore the ways that literature reviews may be undertaken. While reviewing the literature is often presented as a scientific, objective process, the reality is much messier, nuanced, and iterative. It is a complex, context-dependent procedure. We provide a practical, critical guide to undertaking SoTL literature reviews. We distinguish between embedded reviews that present a review contextualising the research that follows, as in most SoTL articles; and freestanding reviews that synthesise research on specific topics. We discuss the nature of embedded reviews, and evaluate systematic and narrative review approaches to undertaking freestanding reviews. We contend that the claims of the superiority of systematic reviews are unjustified. It is important that contextually-sensitive judgements and interpretation of texts associated with narrative reviews are seen as central to the reviewing process, and as a strength rather than a weakness. This article complements a separate one, where we apply an academic literacies lens to reviewing the literature on searching the SoTL literature. Together, they present a narrative review of searching and reviewing the SoTL literature undertaken systematically. We call for studies investigating the lived experiences of SoTL scholars. We illustrate this argument with an auto-ethnographic account of the often-serendipitous nature of our hunt for sources in preparing this review and the way our thinking and writing evolved during the writing of the two articles.
{"title":"Reviewing the Literature on Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL): An Academic Literacies Perspective","authors":"Mick Healey, Ruth Healey","doi":"10.20343/teachlearninqu.11.5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.11.5","url":null,"abstract":"There are few sources that critically evaluate the ways of reviewing the literature on scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL). We use an academic literacies perspective as a lens with which to explore the ways that literature reviews may be undertaken. While reviewing the literature is often presented as a scientific, objective process, the reality is much messier, nuanced, and iterative. It is a complex, context-dependent procedure. We provide a practical, critical guide to undertaking SoTL literature reviews. We distinguish between embedded reviews that present a review contextualising the research that follows, as in most SoTL articles; and freestanding reviews that synthesise research on specific topics. We discuss the nature of embedded reviews, and evaluate systematic and narrative review approaches to undertaking freestanding reviews. We contend that the claims of the superiority of systematic reviews are unjustified. It is important that contextually-sensitive judgements and interpretation of texts associated with narrative reviews are seen as central to the reviewing process, and as a strength rather than a weakness. This article complements a separate one, where we apply an academic literacies lens to reviewing the literature on searching the SoTL literature. Together, they present a narrative review of searching and reviewing the SoTL literature undertaken systematically. We call for studies investigating the lived experiences of SoTL scholars. We illustrate this argument with an auto-ethnographic account of the often-serendipitous nature of our hunt for sources in preparing this review and the way our thinking and writing evolved during the writing of the two articles.","PeriodicalId":44633,"journal":{"name":"Teaching & Learning Inquiry-The ISSOTL Journal","volume":"138 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135645162","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-14DOI: 10.20343/teachlearninqu.9.2.5
FangFang Zhao, G. Roehrig, Lorelei E Patrick, Levesque-Bristol Chantal, S. Cotner
Inquiry-based laboratory activities, as a part of science curricula, have been advocated to increase students’ learning outcomes and improve students’ learning experiences, but students sometimes struggle with open-inquiry activities. This study aims to investigate students’ perceptions of inquiry-based learning in a set of laboratory activities, specifically from a psychological (i.e., Self-Determination Theory) perspective. Students’ ratings of the level of inquiry in these activities indicate that students’ perceptions of inquiry align with the instructor-intended amount of inquiry in each exercise. Students’ written responses, explaining their ratings, indicate that students’ perceptions of the amount of inquiry in a given lab exercise relate to their feeling of freedom (or autonomy), competence, and relatedness (or support), during the inquiry-based learning activities. The results imply that instructors implementing inquiry-based learning activities should consider student motivation, and Self-Determination Theory can be a useful diagnostic tool during teaching development.
{"title":"Using a Self-Determination Theory Approach to Understand Student Perceptions of Inquiry-Based Learning","authors":"FangFang Zhao, G. Roehrig, Lorelei E Patrick, Levesque-Bristol Chantal, S. Cotner","doi":"10.20343/teachlearninqu.9.2.5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.9.2.5","url":null,"abstract":"Inquiry-based laboratory activities, as a part of science curricula, have been advocated to increase students’ learning outcomes and improve students’ learning experiences, but students sometimes struggle with open-inquiry activities. This study aims to investigate students’ perceptions of inquiry-based learning in a set of laboratory activities, specifically from a psychological (i.e., Self-Determination Theory) perspective. Students’ ratings of the level of inquiry in these activities indicate that students’ perceptions of inquiry align with the instructor-intended amount of inquiry in each exercise. Students’ written responses, explaining their ratings, indicate that students’ perceptions of the amount of inquiry in a given lab exercise relate to their feeling of freedom (or autonomy), competence, and relatedness (or support), during the inquiry-based learning activities. The results imply that instructors implementing inquiry-based learning activities should consider student motivation, and Self-Determination Theory can be a useful diagnostic tool during teaching development.","PeriodicalId":44633,"journal":{"name":"Teaching & Learning Inquiry-The ISSOTL Journal","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76140794","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-14DOI: 10.20343/teachlearninqu.9.2.19
Russell Kirkscey, J. Vale, Jennifer Hill, James Weiss
Capstone experiences (CEs) serve a variety of purposes in higher education as opportunities to apply academic skills, explore post-graduate life and employment, and achieve a meaningful undergraduate event. This study investigated the purposes of CEs through a content analysis of institutional course syllabi/course outlines/module outlines and catalog/calendar descriptions at five institutions of higher education: a large public research university in Canada, a large public teaching university in the United Kingdom (UK), a college of a large public research university in the United States (US), and two medium-sized private liberal arts universities in the US. Using the CE purposes found in a review of scholarly literature as a research guide, the authors analyzed 84 institutional documents. CE purposes that appeared in the sample at lower percentages when compared with published studies included oral communication, a coherent academic experience, preparation for graduate school, preparation for life after college, and civic engagement/service learning. Implications for practice include the need for instructors and administrators to consider revising CE documents to better reflect the content and goals of the courses and to address the requirements of other audiences (e.g., program reviewers, accreditation evaluators). Moreover, the results of this study may assist educators in considering reasons for omitting explicit purposes from CE documents and/or justifying the inclusion of previously omitted purposes.
{"title":"Capstone Experience Purposes","authors":"Russell Kirkscey, J. Vale, Jennifer Hill, James Weiss","doi":"10.20343/teachlearninqu.9.2.19","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.9.2.19","url":null,"abstract":"Capstone experiences (CEs) serve a variety of purposes in higher education as opportunities to apply academic skills, explore post-graduate life and employment, and achieve a meaningful undergraduate event. This study investigated the purposes of CEs through a content analysis of institutional course syllabi/course outlines/module outlines and catalog/calendar descriptions at five institutions of higher education: a large public research university in Canada, a large public teaching university in the United Kingdom (UK), a college of a large public research university in the United States (US), and two medium-sized private liberal arts universities in the US. Using the CE purposes found in a review of scholarly literature as a research guide, the authors analyzed 84 institutional documents. CE purposes that appeared in the sample at lower percentages when compared with published studies included oral communication, a coherent academic experience, preparation for graduate school, preparation for life after college, and civic engagement/service learning. Implications for practice include the need for instructors and administrators to consider revising CE documents to better reflect the content and goals of the courses and to address the requirements of other audiences (e.g., program reviewers, accreditation evaluators). Moreover, the results of this study may assist educators in considering reasons for omitting explicit purposes from CE documents and/or justifying the inclusion of previously omitted purposes.","PeriodicalId":44633,"journal":{"name":"Teaching & Learning Inquiry-The ISSOTL Journal","volume":"30 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85115021","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-14DOI: 10.20343/teachlearninqu.9.2.8
K. Schrum, Niall Majury, A. Simonelli
Scholarly digital storytelling combines academic research and digital skills to communicate scholarly work within and beyond the classroom. This article presents three case studies that demonstrate efforts to integrate scholarly digital storytelling, a technology-enhanced assessment, across disciplines, geographic locations, and teaching contexts. The case studies originate in the United States, Northern Ireland [UK], and Norway, and represent learning across multiple disciplines, including history, higher education, geography, and biology. This article explores the potential for scholarly digital storytelling, when carefully planned, scaffolded, and implemented, to engage students in authentic learning, teaching students to think deeply and creatively about disciplinary content while creating sharable digital products.
{"title":"Authentic learning across disciplines and borders with scholarly digital storytelling","authors":"K. Schrum, Niall Majury, A. Simonelli","doi":"10.20343/teachlearninqu.9.2.8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.9.2.8","url":null,"abstract":"Scholarly digital storytelling combines academic research and digital skills to communicate scholarly work within and beyond the classroom. This article presents three case studies that demonstrate efforts to integrate scholarly digital storytelling, a technology-enhanced assessment, across disciplines, geographic locations, and teaching contexts. The case studies originate in the United States, Northern Ireland [UK], and Norway, and represent learning across multiple disciplines, including history, higher education, geography, and biology. This article explores the potential for scholarly digital storytelling, when carefully planned, scaffolded, and implemented, to engage students in authentic learning, teaching students to think deeply and creatively about disciplinary content while creating sharable digital products.","PeriodicalId":44633,"journal":{"name":"Teaching & Learning Inquiry-The ISSOTL Journal","volume":"65 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80362937","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-14DOI: 10.20343/teachlearninqu.9.2.18
Jennifer L. Hill, Kathy Berlin, J. Choate, Lisa Cravens-Brown, L. McKendrick-Calder, Susan Smith
Assessment feedback should be an integral part of learning in higher education, but students can find this process emotionally and cognitively challenging. Instructors need to consider how to manage students’ responses to feedback so that students feel capable of improving their work and maintaining their wellbeing. In this paper, we examine the role of instructor-student relational feed-forward, enacted as a dialogue relating to ongoing assessment, in dissipating student anxiety, enabling productive learning attitudes and behaviours, and supporting wellbeing. We undertook qualitative data collection within two undergraduate teaching units that were adopting a relational feed-forward intervention over the 2019–2020 academic year. Student responses were elicited via small group, semi-structured interviews and personal reflective diaries, and were analysed inductively using thematic analysis. The results demonstrate that relational feed-forward promotes many elements of student feedback literacy, such as appreciating the purpose and value of feedback, judging work against a rubric, exercising volition and agency to act, and managing affect. Students were keen for instructors to help them manage their emotions related to assessment, believing this would promote their wellbeing. We conclude by exploring academic strategies and pedagogies that position relational instructor feed-forward as an act of care, and we summarize the key characteristics of emotionally resonant relational feed-forward meetings.
{"title":"Can Relational Feed-Forward Enhance Students’ Cognitive and Affective Responses to Assessment?","authors":"Jennifer L. Hill, Kathy Berlin, J. Choate, Lisa Cravens-Brown, L. McKendrick-Calder, Susan Smith","doi":"10.20343/teachlearninqu.9.2.18","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.9.2.18","url":null,"abstract":"Assessment feedback should be an integral part of learning in higher education, but students can find this process emotionally and cognitively challenging. Instructors need to consider how to manage students’ responses to feedback so that students feel capable of improving their work and maintaining their wellbeing. In this paper, we examine the role of instructor-student relational feed-forward, enacted as a dialogue relating to ongoing assessment, in dissipating student anxiety, enabling productive learning attitudes and behaviours, and supporting wellbeing. We undertook qualitative data collection within two undergraduate teaching units that were adopting a relational feed-forward intervention over the 2019–2020 academic year. Student responses were elicited via small group, semi-structured interviews and personal reflective diaries, and were analysed inductively using thematic analysis. The results demonstrate that relational feed-forward promotes many elements of student feedback literacy, such as appreciating the purpose and value of feedback, judging work against a rubric, exercising volition and agency to act, and managing affect. Students were keen for instructors to help them manage their emotions related to assessment, believing this would promote their wellbeing. We conclude by exploring academic strategies and pedagogies that position relational instructor feed-forward as an act of care, and we summarize the key characteristics of emotionally resonant relational feed-forward meetings.","PeriodicalId":44633,"journal":{"name":"Teaching & Learning Inquiry-The ISSOTL Journal","volume":"142 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80144683","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：