Disciplinary differences in what is taught and in students' perceptions of what they learn and of how they are taught

Cashin, William E.; Downey, Ronald G.

doi:10.1002/tl.37219956412

Cited by 26 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Ratings of student satisfaction with their teaching in the UK, the US and Australia at that time reported that some disciplines rated more highly than others. For example, the teaching experienced in the Humanities and Social Sciences was consistently more highly regarded that that in the Sciences (Cashin & Downey, 1995;Franklin & Theall, 1995). Additionally, Braxton (1995) contended that academics in the Humanities and Social Sciences showed more interest in students' learning, student development and general undergraduate education than did lecturers in the Sciences.…”

Section: Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The CEQ analysis (Scott, 2006) and the literature (Braxton, 1995;Cameron, 2013;Cashin & Downey, 1995;Franklin & Theall, 1995;Neumann, et al, 2002) report that there are differences between the disciplines as to which learning designs, teaching methods and teaching activities are most commonly employed. The aim of the survey questions in this section was to confirm (or otherwise) discipline differences in the current Australian context.…”

Section: Section 2: the Characteristics Of The Teaching Currently Permentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How learning designs, teaching methods and activities differ by discipline in Australian universities

Cameron

2017

JLD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Section 2: the Characteristics Of The Teaching Currently Permentioning

confidence: 99%

How learning designs, teaching methods and activities differ by discipline in Australian universities

Cameron

2017

JLD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, the sensitivity analysis ensured that it did not much influence the results. A fourth limitation concerns all the factors that might influence learning approaches and were not considered in this study, such as student and teacher factors [13], and institution-specific influences [57]. …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrated problem-based learning versus lectures: a path analysis modelling of the relationships between educational context and learning approaches

Gustin

Abbiati

Bonvin

et al. 2018

Medical Education Online

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Students’ approaches to learning are central to the process of learning. Previous research has revealed that influencing students’ approaches towards deep learning is a complex process and seems much more difficult than expected, even in student-activating learning environments. There is evidence that learning approaches are impacted not only by the learning environment, but also by how students perceive it. However the nature of the links between the environment itself, the way in which it is perceived by students and students’ learning approaches is poorly understood. This study aimed at investigating the relationships between students’ perception of their educational context and learning approaches in three learning environments differing by their teaching formats (lecture or problem-based-learning PBL) and integration level of the curriculum (traditional or integrated). We tested the hypothesis that a PBL format and an integrated curriculum are associated to deeper approaches to learning and that this is mediated by student perception. The study sample was constituted of 1394 medical students trained respectively in a traditional lecture-based (n = 295), in an integrated lecture-based (n = 612) and in an integrated PBL-based (n = 487) curricula. They completed a survey including the Dundee-Ready-Educational-Environment-Measure (students’ perceptions of the educational environment) and the Revised-Study-Process-Questionnaire (learning approaches). Data were analysed by path analysis. The model showed that the learning environment was related to students’ learning approaches by two paths, one direct and one mediated via students’ perception of their educational context. In the lecture-based curricula students’ used deeper approaches when it was integrated and both paths were cumulative. In the PBL-based curriculum students’ did not use deeper approaches than with lectures, due to opposite effects of both paths. This study suggested that an integrated lecture-based curriculum was as effective as a PBL curriculum in promoting students’ deep learning approaches, reinforcing the importance of integrating the curriculum before choosing the teaching format.

show abstract

“…These successes support the idea that hands-on participation (e.g., Gagne, 1963;AAAS CSE and Gagne, 1965;O'Neill and Polman, 2004), interpretation, and iteration (Tobin, 1990) are key components to effective student learning in the sciences. Importantly, we posit that by explicitly relating these student learning opportunities to the scientific process (as summarized by Carpi and Egger, 2010), we have provided an effective path toward improved student scientific literacy, an idea supported by many researchers (e.g., Cashin and Downey, 1995;Smart and Ethington, 1995;Lederman, 2007).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although some researchers suggest that overall learning is more effective when knowledge is gained in the context of scientific processes (Cashin and Downey, 1995;Smart and Ethington, 1995), Lederman (2007) suggests that learning goals related to scientific literacy are better achieved by making students' participation in the scientific process explicit. Further, Schwartz et al (2004) indicate that teaching in the context of hands-on activities requires both explicit discussions and opportunities for individual reflection in order for students to construct a more complete understanding of the process of science.…”

Section: Teaching Scientific Literacymentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing Scientific Literacy in Introductory Laboratory Courses: A Model for Course Design and Assessment

Surpless

Bushey

Halx³

2014

Journal of Geoscience Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although science educators at all levels have focused on teaching students scientific literacy for nearly five decades, studies indicate that the average student remains far from scientifically literate. To address this issue at the local level, faculty at Trinity University, in San Antonio, Texas, significantly revised the curriculum of an existing introductory physical geology laboratory course. The course, which satisfies general education requirements at Trinity, was revised to provide students learning opportunities in a scientific process context as part of a new science literacy initiative. This effort was spurred by general dissatisfaction with the existing curricular structure of the course as well as a new interdisciplinary, National Science Foundation (NSF)-funded initiative to support the integration of research-grade instrumentation in curricula and undergraduate research across campus. The physical geology laboratory course revision was based on research that demonstrated the efficacy of learning through active participation, interpretation, iteration, and reflection, especially when knowledge and skills are gained within an explicit scientific process context. In addition to significantly revising laboratory activities, we added new activities within the course framework that involved the use of two new, NSF-funded instruments, including a handheld X-ray fluorescence spectrometer (XRF) and an inductively coupled plasma-optical emissions spectrometer (ICP-OES), which we used to improve student understanding of qualitative and quantitative elemental analyses. Finally, we introduced the use of a new course reader that provided both background materials for each activity as well as a new focus on providing a scientific process context for students. To assess student learning, we used in-class observations, student-instructor discussions, pre-and postlearning questionnaires, prelaboratory quizzes, course activities completed during class time, modified postactivity reflection questions, practical examinations, and a final examination. We also included faculty, staff, and administrator perspectives to qualitatively assess the impact of course changes upon student learning. Our results imply that students achieved the primary learning goals we developed for this scientific literacy initiative, including: (1) improved understanding of the scientific process and the nature of science; (2) improved understanding of qualitative and quantitative elemental research methods; and (3) improved understanding of the applicability of scientific research to real-world problems. Importantly, our findings suggest that the integration of research-grade instrumentation into introductory coursework, in a scientific process context, is an effective way to promote scientific literacy as well as to provide opportunities for students to understand and apply the knowledge and skills necessary to perform scientific research. We believe that this example of a significant course redesign provides a model that can be trans...

show abstract

Disciplinary differences in what is taught and in students' perceptions of what they learn and of how they are taught

Abstract: Although students rate different academic fields differently, the Biglan clusters seem not to explain these differences.

Cited by 26 publications

References 11 publications

How learning designs, teaching methods and activities differ by discipline in Australian universities

How learning designs, teaching methods and activities differ by discipline in Australian universities

Integrated problem-based learning versus lectures: a path analysis modelling of the relationships between educational context and learning approaches

Developing Scientific Literacy in Introductory Laboratory Courses: A Model for Course Design and Assessment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About