学者教学方法的动态变化:潜在特征分析

IF 2.6 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Studies in Educational Evaluation Pub Date : 2024-03-27 DOI:10.1016/j.stueduc.2024.101349
Marian D. Ilie , Peter Van Petegem , Velibor Mladenovici , Laurenţiu P. Maricuţoiu
{"title":"学者教学方法的动态变化:潜在特征分析","authors":"Marian D. Ilie ,&nbsp;Peter Van Petegem ,&nbsp;Velibor Mladenovici ,&nbsp;Laurenţiu P. Maricuţoiu","doi":"10.1016/j.stueduc.2024.101349","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Current studies highlighted a positive relationship between academics' learning-focused approaches to teaching and students' active and deep learning. Thus, scholars have an ongoing debate about the dynamics of change from academics’ content-focused to learning-focused approaches to teaching. Previous studies investigating this subject used variable-centered analyses (on cross-sectional or pre-post data) or person-centered analyses only on cross-sectional data. Such research approaches presented limited information about the dynamics of change in teaching approaches of naturally occurring subgroups of academics with multiple teaching approach characteristics. This study analyzed the issue using longitudinal data collected on three moments (N = 111 Romanian academics) and a person-centered approach (i.e., latent profile transition analysis). We identified three dissonant approaches to teaching and one learning-focused. Our results suggested that the process of change in approaches to teaching seems to be slow and, sometimes, discontinuous. The transition from the most dissonant approach to the learning-focused approach could occur directly or by intermediary steps described as less dissonant. These dynamics of change are similar across various subsamples defined by the academics’ teaching context, specialization, gender, teaching experience, and pedagogical training programs followed. We advanced several implications for designing pedagogical programs for academics and future research.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47539,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Educational Evaluation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191491X24000282/pdfft?md5=fb5bcc9ba75e42928cc77fa37d363701&pid=1-s2.0-S0191491X24000282-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dynamics of change of academics’ teaching approaches: A latent profile transition analysis\",\"authors\":\"Marian D. Ilie ,&nbsp;Peter Van Petegem ,&nbsp;Velibor Mladenovici ,&nbsp;Laurenţiu P. Maricuţoiu\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.stueduc.2024.101349\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Current studies highlighted a positive relationship between academics' learning-focused approaches to teaching and students' active and deep learning. Thus, scholars have an ongoing debate about the dynamics of change from academics’ content-focused to learning-focused approaches to teaching. Previous studies investigating this subject used variable-centered analyses (on cross-sectional or pre-post data) or person-centered analyses only on cross-sectional data. Such research approaches presented limited information about the dynamics of change in teaching approaches of naturally occurring subgroups of academics with multiple teaching approach characteristics. This study analyzed the issue using longitudinal data collected on three moments (N = 111 Romanian academics) and a person-centered approach (i.e., latent profile transition analysis). We identified three dissonant approaches to teaching and one learning-focused. Our results suggested that the process of change in approaches to teaching seems to be slow and, sometimes, discontinuous. The transition from the most dissonant approach to the learning-focused approach could occur directly or by intermediary steps described as less dissonant. These dynamics of change are similar across various subsamples defined by the academics’ teaching context, specialization, gender, teaching experience, and pedagogical training programs followed. We advanced several implications for designing pedagogical programs for academics and future research.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47539,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Studies in Educational Evaluation\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191491X24000282/pdfft?md5=fb5bcc9ba75e42928cc77fa37d363701&pid=1-s2.0-S0191491X24000282-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Studies in Educational Evaluation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191491X24000282\",\"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":"Studies in Educational Evaluation","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191491X24000282","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

目前的研究强调,学者以学习为中心的教学方法与学生的主动和深入学习之间存在着积极的关系。因此,学者们一直在讨论从学者以内容为中心的教学方法到以学习为中心的教学方法的动态变化。以往调查这一主题的研究采用变量中心分析法(横截面数据或前后数据),或仅对横截面数据进行以人为中心的分析。这些研究方法只能提供有限的信息,说明自然形成的具有多种教学方法特征的学者亚群在教学方法上的动态变化。本研究利用收集到的三个时刻的纵向数据(N = 111 名罗马尼亚学者)和以人为中心的方法(即潜在特征分析)分析了这一问题。我们发现了三种不和谐的教学方法和一种以学习为中心的方法。我们的结果表明,教学方法的变化过程似乎是缓慢的,有时甚至是不连续的。从最不和谐的教学方法过渡到以学习为中心的教学方法,可能是直接发生的,也可能是通过被描述为不太和谐的中间步骤发生的。根据学者的教学背景、专业、性别、教学经验和所参加的教学培训项目等因素,这些变化的动态变化在不同的子样本中是相似的。我们提出了为学者设计教学计划和未来研究的若干启示。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Dynamics of change of academics’ teaching approaches: A latent profile transition analysis

Current studies highlighted a positive relationship between academics' learning-focused approaches to teaching and students' active and deep learning. Thus, scholars have an ongoing debate about the dynamics of change from academics’ content-focused to learning-focused approaches to teaching. Previous studies investigating this subject used variable-centered analyses (on cross-sectional or pre-post data) or person-centered analyses only on cross-sectional data. Such research approaches presented limited information about the dynamics of change in teaching approaches of naturally occurring subgroups of academics with multiple teaching approach characteristics. This study analyzed the issue using longitudinal data collected on three moments (N = 111 Romanian academics) and a person-centered approach (i.e., latent profile transition analysis). We identified three dissonant approaches to teaching and one learning-focused. Our results suggested that the process of change in approaches to teaching seems to be slow and, sometimes, discontinuous. The transition from the most dissonant approach to the learning-focused approach could occur directly or by intermediary steps described as less dissonant. These dynamics of change are similar across various subsamples defined by the academics’ teaching context, specialization, gender, teaching experience, and pedagogical training programs followed. We advanced several implications for designing pedagogical programs for academics and future research.

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
6.90
自引率
6.50%
发文量
90
审稿时长
62 days
期刊介绍: Studies in Educational Evaluation publishes original reports of evaluation studies. Four types of articles are published by the journal: (a) Empirical evaluation studies representing evaluation practice in educational systems around the world; (b) Theoretical reflections and empirical studies related to issues involved in the evaluation of educational programs, educational institutions, educational personnel and student assessment; (c) Articles summarizing the state-of-the-art concerning specific topics in evaluation in general or in a particular country or group of countries; (d) Book reviews and brief abstracts of evaluation studies.
期刊最新文献
Exploring factors influencing teacher self-efficacy in implementing inclusive education in Cambodia: A two-level hierarchical linear model What value do standardized observation systems add to summative teacher evaluation systems? Investigating anonymity in formative and summative peer assessment: Effects on university students’ social-affective factors, perceptions and preference Re-imagining educational quality. The need for a multidimensional approach in evaluating educational quality through TIMSS data Comparing the reliability of performance task scores obtained from rating scale and analytic rubric using the generalizability theory
×
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
×
提示
确定
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