Why College Faculty Need to Know the Research about Learning

Smith, Gary

doi:10.46504/10201500sm

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For this reason, more applied research needs to combine the variable of physical space into research on active learning pedagogies. Smith (2015) calls on faculty who attempt active learning implementation to engage in greater reflection and assessment of their practices in ways that treat class activities as unique entities to more accurately report successful and unsuccessful practices. In their call to action, Lumpkin et al (2015b) encourage faculty to evaluate their teaching strategies and solicit anonymous student perceptions as a quality mechanism to improve course design and instructional strategies.…”

Section: Purposementioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing a Two-Pronged Approach to Active Learning in Sport Sociology Classrooms

Dane-Staples

2019

Sport Management Education Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Active-learning research has explored 2 distinct areas: pedagogy and physical space. As existing research has most often explored only 1 area per study and few have been done in the area of sport sociology, additional research is needed. This research combined both areas of active learning through a quasi-experimental design. Using 2 different classes, Sport and Society and Gender and Sport, students were exposed to an unchanging physical space or manipulated physical space, as well as active-learning tasks of varying complexity. No differences in student perceptions of engagement or learning were found when comparing space variations; however, task complexity did lead to significant differences in student perceptions of engagement and learning.

show abstract

Section: Purposementioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing a Two-Pronged Approach to Active Learning in Sport Sociology Classrooms

Dane-Staples

2019

Sport Management Education Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Third places: cultivating mobile communities of practice in the global south

Gachago

Cruz

Belford

et al. 2021

International Journal for Academic Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How are undergraduate STEM instructors leveraging student thinking?

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background STEM instructors who leverage student thinking can positively influence student outcomes and build their own teaching expertise. Leveraging student thinking involves using the substance of student thinking to inform instruction. The ways in which instructors leverage student thinking in undergraduate STEM contexts, and what enables them to do so effectively, remains largely unexplored. We investigated how undergraduate STEM faculty leverage student thinking in their teaching, focusing on faculty who engage students in work during class. Results From analyzing interviews and video of a class lesson for eight undergraduate STEM instructors, we identified a group of instructors who exhibited high levels of leveraging student thinking (high-leveragers) and a group of instructors who exhibited low levels of leveraging student thinking (low-leveragers). High-leveragers behaved as if student thinking was central to their instruction. We saw this in how they accessed student thinking, worked to interpret it, and responded in the moment and after class. High-leveragers spent about twice as much class time getting access to detailed information about student thinking compared to low-leveragers. High-leveragers then altered instructional plans from lesson to lesson and during a lesson based on their interpretation of student thinking. Critically, high-leveragers also drew on much more extensive knowledge of student thinking, a component of pedagogical content knowledge, than did low-leveragers. High-leveragers used knowledge of student thinking to create access to more substantive student thinking, shape real-time interpretations, and inform how and when to respond. In contrast, low-leveragers accessed student thinking less frequently, interpreted student thinking superficially or not at all, and never discussed adjusting the content or problems for the following lesson. Conclusions This study revealed that not all undergraduate STEM instructors who actively engage students in work during class are also leveraging student thinking. In other words, not all student-centered instruction is student-thinking-centered instruction. We discuss possible explanations for why some STEM instructors are leveraging student thinking and others are not. In order to realize the benefits of student-centered instruction for undergraduates, we may need to support undergraduate STEM instructors in learning how to learn from their teaching experiences by leveraging student thinking.

show abstract

Why College Faculty Need to Know the Research about Learning

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Assessing a Two-Pronged Approach to Active Learning in Sport Sociology Classrooms

Assessing a Two-Pronged Approach to Active Learning in Sport Sociology Classrooms

Third places: cultivating mobile communities of practice in the global south

How are undergraduate STEM instructors leveraging student thinking?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About