追逐影响:三个SoTL研究的故事

IF 1.7 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Teaching & Learning Inquiry-The ISSOTL Journal Pub Date : 2020-03-15 DOI:10.20343/teachlearninqu.8.1.7
E. Pechenkina
{"title":"追逐影响:三个SoTL研究的故事","authors":"E. Pechenkina","doi":"10.20343/teachlearninqu.8.1.7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article queries the notion of impact in studies of teaching and learning located within the field of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL). Grounded in literature focused on measuring and challenging the impact in SoTL, and primarily on the “what works” question, the author proposes a rubric by which to judge various levels and dimensions of impact achieved in SoTL-focused projects. To operationalize it, the rubric is applied to three completed projects, which while differing in their initial scope and intended outputs were united by a shared goal of improving learning by the means of innovative teaching. By using the rubric to analyze these projects’ outputs, strengths and weaknesses of each project’s design and evaluation methodology are revealed. Diverse levels and dimensions of impact are identified and discussed. The author invites scholars of teaching and learning to use, test, and critique the rubric in the context of their completed or in-progress studies.","PeriodicalId":44633,"journal":{"name":"Teaching & Learning Inquiry-The ISSOTL Journal","volume":"66 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Chasing impact: The tale of three SoTL studies\",\"authors\":\"E. Pechenkina\",\"doi\":\"10.20343/teachlearninqu.8.1.7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article queries the notion of impact in studies of teaching and learning located within the field of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL). Grounded in literature focused on measuring and challenging the impact in SoTL, and primarily on the “what works” question, the author proposes a rubric by which to judge various levels and dimensions of impact achieved in SoTL-focused projects. To operationalize it, the rubric is applied to three completed projects, which while differing in their initial scope and intended outputs were united by a shared goal of improving learning by the means of innovative teaching. By using the rubric to analyze these projects’ outputs, strengths and weaknesses of each project’s design and evaluation methodology are revealed. Diverse levels and dimensions of impact are identified and discussed. The author invites scholars of teaching and learning to use, test, and critique the rubric in the context of their completed or in-progress studies.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44633,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Teaching & Learning Inquiry-The ISSOTL Journal\",\"volume\":\"66 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-03-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Teaching & Learning Inquiry-The ISSOTL Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.8.1.7\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Teaching & Learning Inquiry-The ISSOTL Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.8.1.7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

本文对教与学研究中影响的概念提出了质疑。基于关注于测量和挑战SoTL影响的文献,主要是关于“什么有效”的问题,作者提出了一个评判以SoTL为重点的项目中所取得的影响的不同层次和维度的标准。为了使其可操作,将该标题应用于三个已完成的项目,这些项目虽然在初始范围和预期产出方面有所不同,但都有一个共同的目标,即通过创新教学手段改善学习。通过使用标题来分析这些项目的产出,揭示了每个项目的设计和评估方法的优缺点。确定并讨论了影响的不同层次和维度。作者邀请学者的教学和学习使用,测试和批评的标题在他们完成或正在进行的研究的背景下。
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
Chasing impact: The tale of three SoTL studies
This article queries the notion of impact in studies of teaching and learning located within the field of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL). Grounded in literature focused on measuring and challenging the impact in SoTL, and primarily on the “what works” question, the author proposes a rubric by which to judge various levels and dimensions of impact achieved in SoTL-focused projects. To operationalize it, the rubric is applied to three completed projects, which while differing in their initial scope and intended outputs were united by a shared goal of improving learning by the means of innovative teaching. By using the rubric to analyze these projects’ outputs, strengths and weaknesses of each project’s design and evaluation methodology are revealed. Diverse levels and dimensions of impact are identified and discussed. The author invites scholars of teaching and learning to use, test, and critique the rubric in the context of their completed or in-progress studies.
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
Teaching & Learning Inquiry-The ISSOTL Journal
Teaching & Learning Inquiry-The ISSOTL Journal EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
30.00%
发文量
37
审稿时长
17 weeks
期刊最新文献
Navigating between Scylla and Charybdis: SoTL as its Own Kind of Inquiry Experiences with Supporting Teachers with Scholarship of Teaching and Learning at a Research-Intensive University: Lessons Learned Defining Active Learning: A Restricted Systemic Review Using Scenarios to Explore the Complexity of Student-Faculty Partnership Challenges of Shaping Student Study Strategies for Success: Replication and Extension
×
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