化学教师合作采用循证教学实践的相关因素:一项全国性调查的结果

IF 2.6 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Chemistry Education Research and Practice Pub Date : 2024-02-07 DOI:10.1039/D3RP00194F
Megan C. Connor and Jeffrey R. Raker
{"title":"化学教师合作采用循证教学实践的相关因素:一项全国性调查的结果","authors":"Megan C. Connor and Jeffrey R. Raker","doi":"10.1039/D3RP00194F","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p >Despite institutional reform efforts to increase use of evidence-based instructional practices (EBIPs) in undergraduate chemistry and STEM courses, didactic lecture remains the predominant mode of instruction. Research to inform these initiatives routinely focuses on drivers and barriers to EBIP adoption, with recent work investigating factors associated with faculty members’ cooperative adoption of EBIPs from five STEM disciplines including chemistry. To understand the role of these specific factors within undergraduate chemistry education across a broad set of institutions, we conducted a national survey of chemistry faculty members (<em>n</em> = 1105) from the United States in Spring 2023. The survey targeted constructs that may underlie the cooperative adoption of EBIPs, including faculty members’ perception of (1) using EBIPs as mutually beneficial, (2) having their success and failure intertwined, and (3) institutional climate around teaching. The survey also included items targeting teaching-specific social interactions, another potential aspect of cooperative adoption. Results from multilevel modeling suggest that EBIP adoption is associated with chemistry faculty members’ perception of using EBIPs as mutually beneficial, aligning with prior findings on STEM faculty members’ cooperative adoption of these practices. However, there is no evidence of an association between EBIP adoption and chemistry faculty members’ perception of campus climate around teaching, where prior findings indicate an inverse association among STEM faculty members. Results further indicate that EBIP adoption is associated with the number of people with whom one specifically discusses pedagogy, instruction, and assessment. Collectively, our results demonstrate that differences exist between STEM disciplines and point toward the chemistry education research community's responsibility to further explore EBIP adoption from a disciplinary lens. Our investigation also provides insight into factors associated with the cooperative adoption of EBIPs among chemistry faculty members on a national level; we identify several implications for how chemistry faculty member change agents (<em>e.g.</em>, course coordinators, department leaders) may effectively promote EBIP adoption across the undergraduate chemistry curriculum.</p>","PeriodicalId":69,"journal":{"name":"Chemistry Education Research and Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlepdf/2024/rp/d3rp00194f?page=search","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Factors associated with chemistry faculty members’ cooperative adoption of evidence-based instructional practices: results from a national survey\",\"authors\":\"Megan C. Connor and Jeffrey R. Raker\",\"doi\":\"10.1039/D3RP00194F\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p >Despite institutional reform efforts to increase use of evidence-based instructional practices (EBIPs) in undergraduate chemistry and STEM courses, didactic lecture remains the predominant mode of instruction. Research to inform these initiatives routinely focuses on drivers and barriers to EBIP adoption, with recent work investigating factors associated with faculty members’ cooperative adoption of EBIPs from five STEM disciplines including chemistry. To understand the role of these specific factors within undergraduate chemistry education across a broad set of institutions, we conducted a national survey of chemistry faculty members (<em>n</em> = 1105) from the United States in Spring 2023. The survey targeted constructs that may underlie the cooperative adoption of EBIPs, including faculty members’ perception of (1) using EBIPs as mutually beneficial, (2) having their success and failure intertwined, and (3) institutional climate around teaching. The survey also included items targeting teaching-specific social interactions, another potential aspect of cooperative adoption. Results from multilevel modeling suggest that EBIP adoption is associated with chemistry faculty members’ perception of using EBIPs as mutually beneficial, aligning with prior findings on STEM faculty members’ cooperative adoption of these practices. However, there is no evidence of an association between EBIP adoption and chemistry faculty members’ perception of campus climate around teaching, where prior findings indicate an inverse association among STEM faculty members. Results further indicate that EBIP adoption is associated with the number of people with whom one specifically discusses pedagogy, instruction, and assessment. Collectively, our results demonstrate that differences exist between STEM disciplines and point toward the chemistry education research community's responsibility to further explore EBIP adoption from a disciplinary lens. Our investigation also provides insight into factors associated with the cooperative adoption of EBIPs among chemistry faculty members on a national level; we identify several implications for how chemistry faculty member change agents (<em>e.g.</em>, course coordinators, department leaders) may effectively promote EBIP adoption across the undergraduate chemistry curriculum.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":69,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Chemistry Education Research and Practice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlepdf/2024/rp/d3rp00194f?page=search\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Chemistry Education Research and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2024/rp/d3rp00194f\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chemistry Education Research and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2024/rp/d3rp00194f","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

尽管机构改革努力在本科生化学和 STEM 课程中增加循证教学实践(EBIP)的使用,但说教式授课仍是主要的教学模式。为这些举措提供信息的研究通常侧重于采用 EBIP 的驱动因素和障碍,最近的研究工作调查了包括化学在内的五个 STEM 学科中与教师合作采用 EBIP 相关的因素。为了了解这些特定因素在不同院校的本科化学教育中的作用,我们在 2023 年春季对美国的化学教师(n = 1105)进行了一次全国性调查。调查针对的是可能成为合作采用 EBIPs 基础的构建因素,包括教师对以下方面的看法:(1) 使用 EBIPs 是互利的;(2) EBIPs 的成功与失败是交织在一起的;(3) 围绕教学的机构氛围。调查还包括针对特定教学的社会互动项目,这是合作采用的另一个潜在方面。多层次建模的结果表明,采用 EBIP 与化学教职员工认为使用 EBIP 是互利的观点有关,这与之前关于 STEM 教职员工合作采用这些实践的研究结果一致。然而,没有证据表明采用 EBIP 与化学教职员工对校园教学氛围的看法之间存在关联,而之前的研究结果表明 STEM 教职员工之间存在反向关联。研究结果进一步表明,采用 EBIP 与专门讨论教学法、教学和评估的人数有关。总之,我们的研究结果表明,STEM 学科之间存在差异,并指出化学教育研究界有责任从学科角度进一步探索 EBIP 的采用情况。我们的调查还深入探讨了与全国化学教职员工合作采用 EBIP 相关的因素;我们为化学教职员工变革推动者(如课程协调员、系领导)如何有效促进本科化学课程采用 EBIP 提出了几点建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Factors associated with chemistry faculty members’ cooperative adoption of evidence-based instructional practices: results from a national survey

Despite institutional reform efforts to increase use of evidence-based instructional practices (EBIPs) in undergraduate chemistry and STEM courses, didactic lecture remains the predominant mode of instruction. Research to inform these initiatives routinely focuses on drivers and barriers to EBIP adoption, with recent work investigating factors associated with faculty members’ cooperative adoption of EBIPs from five STEM disciplines including chemistry. To understand the role of these specific factors within undergraduate chemistry education across a broad set of institutions, we conducted a national survey of chemistry faculty members (n = 1105) from the United States in Spring 2023. The survey targeted constructs that may underlie the cooperative adoption of EBIPs, including faculty members’ perception of (1) using EBIPs as mutually beneficial, (2) having their success and failure intertwined, and (3) institutional climate around teaching. The survey also included items targeting teaching-specific social interactions, another potential aspect of cooperative adoption. Results from multilevel modeling suggest that EBIP adoption is associated with chemistry faculty members’ perception of using EBIPs as mutually beneficial, aligning with prior findings on STEM faculty members’ cooperative adoption of these practices. However, there is no evidence of an association between EBIP adoption and chemistry faculty members’ perception of campus climate around teaching, where prior findings indicate an inverse association among STEM faculty members. Results further indicate that EBIP adoption is associated with the number of people with whom one specifically discusses pedagogy, instruction, and assessment. Collectively, our results demonstrate that differences exist between STEM disciplines and point toward the chemistry education research community's responsibility to further explore EBIP adoption from a disciplinary lens. Our investigation also provides insight into factors associated with the cooperative adoption of EBIPs among chemistry faculty members on a national level; we identify several implications for how chemistry faculty member change agents (e.g., course coordinators, department leaders) may effectively promote EBIP adoption across the undergraduate chemistry curriculum.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
26.70%
发文量
64
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal for teachers, researchers and other practitioners in chemistry education.
期刊最新文献
The Complexity of Chemistry Mindset Beliefs: A Multiple Case Study Approach Development of problem-solving skills supported by metacognitive scaffolding: Insights from students’ written work Fostering inclusive learning: customized kits in chemistry education and their influence on self-efficacy, attitudes and achievements Why do we assess students? Investigating General Chemistry Instructors’ Conceptions of Assessment Purposes and Their Relationships to Assessment Practices Assessing high school students’ chemical thinking using an essential questions-perspective framework
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1