자연주의적 탐구조사(Naturalistic Inquiry)

Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques

Preface Chapter 1 The challenge Chapter 2 The nature of the evidence: A synthesis of meta-analyses Chapter 3 The argument: Visible teaching and visible learning Chapter 4: The contributions from the student Chapter 5 The contributions from the home Chapter 6 The contributions from the school Chapter 7 The contributions from the teacher Chapter 8 The contributions from the curricula Chapter 9 The contributions from teaching approaches - I Chapter 10 The contributions from teaching approaches - II Chapter 11: Bringing it all together Appendix A: The 800 meta-analyses Appendix B: The meta-analyses by rank order References

Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement

generalize create, solve unseen problems, extrapolate to unknown domains 22831.indb 124 6/15/11 2:11 PM Designing intended learning outcomes 125 • the verb at the appropriate level of understanding or of performance intended; • the topic content the verb is meant to address, the object of the verb in other words; • the context of the content discipline in which the verb is to be deployed. The ILOs for the course The Nature of Teaching and Learning illustrate these points: 1 Explain why a particular course topic is important to teaching. 2 Apply a course topic to your own teaching. 3 Refl ect on your teaching in terms of a working theory you have gained from the course. 4 Evaluate a situation that has gone wrong and apply a solution. The fi rst refers to declarative knowledge: the students have to reach a level of understanding that requires them to explain something, not just describe or list it: the latter only display multistructural levels of understanding, but explaining requires students to be able to relate the topic to the context of teaching and is at a relational level of understanding. The second is a functioning knowledge example also at the relational level as it requires a level of understanding that enables the student to apply the topic to teaching. The other two are also about functioning knowledge and should be at the relational to extended abstract level of understanding, depending on the originality of the student’s response. The content in (3) is the student’s own working theory and the context the student’s own teaching, and in (4), the content is the theory used in evaluating and the context the problematic situation in teaching. As a note on the number of ILOs per course, we stated earlier that there should be no more fi ve or six ILOs for any course, even though there may be up to ten topics that need addressing. The answer is to write integrating ILOs that address several topics, or, as in ILOs (1) and (2) above, the ILO allows the student to select just one topic for demonstrating ability to achieve the ILO. Another thing to watch out for are redundant ILOs, such as ‘Describe and explain . . .’. ‘Describe’ is redundant because if the student can explain the topic, he or she can certainly describe it. The other matter one should keep in mind at this stage is that desirable but unintended outcomes, or outcomes unforeseen by the teacher, may emerge. This is the nature of extended abstract responses by the student, and they will be accounted for in the normal assessment, but others may simply be things that the student sees as important and relevant learning. This matter becomes a practical issue during assessment, and we address it in Chapter 10. You should now be in a position to design and write your own ILOs for a course you are teaching (Task 7.1). 22831.indb 125 6/15/11 2:11 PM 126 Designing constructively aligned outcomes-based teaching and learning Task 7.1 Writing course ILOs Take a course that you are teaching. Consider the course aim and write the course ILOs by identifying: a the kind of knowledge to be learned (declarative or functioning). b the content or topic to be learned. c the level of understanding or performance to be achieved. d any particular context in which the outcome verb is to be enacted. The following grid may be a useful framework to help you think. Kind of knowledge Level of Content topic Context Declar/function understanding (outcome verb) ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ Now go across the rows and write out the course ILOs by stating the intended level of understanding or performance (outcome verb), topic and the context in which the verb is to be enacted. There is no need to include the kind of knowledge in the ILO as that is defi ned by the verb(s) you use. To recap an example of a course ILO from our course The Nature of Teaching and Learning : Students should be able to: Refl ect (level of understanding and performance) on your teaching (context) in terms of a working theory you have gained from the course (content). Now write your course ILOs. Students should be able to: ILO1: _______________________________________________________ ILO2: _______________________________________________________ ILO3: _______________________________________________________ 22831.indb 126 6/15/11 2:11 PM Designing intended learning outcomes 127 Aligning ILOs at three levels: curriculum mapping Now that we have written the course ILOs, we have the task of checking to see that the three levels of intended outcomes, graduate, programme and course, are aligned. We can achieve this by curriculum mapping (Huet et al. 2009), which is a systematic means of ensuring alignment between programme ILOs and graduate outcomes, and course ILOs and programme ILOs. Graduate outcomes and programme ILOs Table 7.4 shows a simply way of checking the alignment between graduate outcomes and programme ILOs. The table is a device to ensure that the match between programme ILOs and graduate outcomes has at least been considered. Programme ILOs should not be forced to match graduate outcomes that don’t belong in the programme. Because of the different natures of different disciplines or professions, different programmes may have different emphases in addressing the graduate outcomes. It is not necessary that every programme should address all graduate outcomes to the same extent because some may not be relevant to the programme. Programme ILOs are simply the reasons that the programme is being taught, which is a matter of professional and academic judgment. However, university policy will prevail on this. Task 7.2 parallels Table 7.4: it asks you to align programme ILOs with the graduate outcomes of your university, if it has any. If the programme ILOs ILO4: _______________________________________________________ ILO5:_______________________________________________________ ILO6:_______________________________________________________ Review the ILOs to see whether: a the kind of knowledge, content and level of understanding or performance are relevant to achieve the course aim. b they cover all the main reasons for teaching the course. c they are clearly written, especially in identifying the level of understanding or performance to be achieved by the students, and the context (if appropriate). d the number is manageable for designing aligned teaching/learning activities and assessment tasks. How does this new set of course ILOs compare to your existing course ‘objectives’? Does the existing set need to be rewritten? 22831.indb 127 6/15/11 2:11 PM 128 Designing constructively aligned outcomes-based teaching and learning haven’t yet been articulated, discuss them with the programme coordinator and derive a set, then match them with the graduate outcomes. This should give you a clearer idea of how graduate outcomes can suitably be addressed in your teaching. How does your attempt gel with your university’s policy on this? Gelade and Fursenko (2007) also describe a tool for systematically mapping courses and programmes for graduate outcomes. Task 7.2 Aligning programme ILOs with graduate outcomes 1 Take a programme in which you are teaching and either list the programme ILOs if they are already articulated or, if they are not, sit down with the programme coordinator or programme committee chairperson and fi rst write the aims of the programme and a list of programme ILOs that meet those aims. 2 What are the graduate outcomes of your university? List them in the left-hand column in the grid below. 3 In the right-hand column list the programme ILOs that would address the graduate outcomes. Are all graduate outcomes addressed somewhere? Which are not? Does it matter?’ Graduate outcomes Programme ILO 1 2 etc. Table 7.4 An example of aligning programme ILOs with graduate outcomes Graduate outcomes Programme ILO Competent in professional Analyse and apply principles to real-life practice accounting situations Communicate effectively Communicate as a professional with clients and colleagues in real-life accounting situations Teamwork Operate effectively and ethically as a team member in real-life accounting situations Ethical professional As above 22831.indb 128 6/15/11 2:11 PM Designing intended learning outcomes 129 Programme ILOs and course ILOs The next level of alignment is between the programme and the course ILOs. As each programme is served by its constituent courses, it is important that, when aligning course ILOs to the programme ILOs, the course ILOs in total address all aspects of the programme ILOs. Often a programme ILO will be addressed by several courses, from different and increasingly more complex angles. You may attempt this in Task 7.3. Task 7.3 Aligning course ILOs with programme ILOs For individual teachers 1 List the programme ILOs of the programme. 2 List the course ILOs of the courses that you are teaching in a given programme. 3 Consider what programme ILO(s) each of the course ILOs addresses in the following table. Programme ILOs Course 1 ILOs Course 2 ILOs Course 3 ILOs

Teaching For Quality Learning At University

Lincoln, Yvonna, and Egon Guba, "Postpositivism and the Naturalist Paradigm," pp. 14-46 in Yvonna Lincoln and Egon Guba, Naturalistic Inquiry . Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1985.*

Aim. To produce a revised two-factor version of the Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F) suitable for use by teachers in evaluating the learning approaches of their students. The revised instrument assesses deep and surface approaches only, using fewer items. Method. A set of 43 items was drawn up for the initial tests. These were derived from: the original version of the SPQ, modified items from the SPQ, and new items. A process of testing and refinement eventuated in deep and surface motive and strategy scales each with 5 items, 10 items per approach score. The final version was tested using reliability procedures and confirmatory factor analysis. Sample. The sample for the testing and refinement process consisted of 229 students from the health sciences faculty of a university in Hong Kong. A fresh sample of 495 undergraduate students from a variety of departments of the same university was used for the test of the final version. Results. The final version of the questionnaire had acceptable Cronbach alpha values for scale reliability. Confirmatory factor analysis indicated a good fit to the intended two-factor structure. Both deep and surface approach scales had well identified motive and strategy subscales. Conclusion. The revision process has resulted in a simple questionnaire which teachers can use to evaluate their own teaching and the learning approaches of their students.

/pdf/the-revised-two-factor-study-process-questionnaire-r-spq-2f-3jju173esw.pdf

The revised two-factor study process questionnaire : R-SPQ-2F

A reconceptualisation of the research into university academics' conceptions of teaching

Previous research has established a close link between students'conceptions of learning, approaches to study and learning outcomes.Until recently, there have been few studies of lecturers' approaches toteaching in higher education and their relationship with conceptions ofteaching. This study aimed to characterise the alternative approaches toteaching of university lecturers, and to examine the relationshipbetween lecturers' approaches to teaching and their conceptions of goodteaching. This study adopted an open naturalistic approach. Seventeenlecturers in three departments in a university were selected forinterview based on their rank, years of teaching and industrial orprofessional experience. Lecturers were interviewed individually abouttheir conceptions of good teaching, motivational strategies andeffective teaching. The interview records were then content analysed bythe two researchers of the study. The study found that (a) it waspossible to characterise lecturers' approaches to teaching with onemotivation and five strategy dimensions; (b) the conceptions of teachingof the lecturers were best described by two main orientations oftransmissive and facilitative teaching; (c) lecturers who conceivedteaching as transmitting knowledge were more likely to usecontent-centred approaches to teaching, while those who conceivedteaching as facilitative tended to use learning-centred approaches. Thestudy concludes by suggesting that fundamental changes to the quality ofteaching and learning are unlikely to happen without changes tolecturers' conception of teaching.

Lecturers’ Approaches to Teaching and their Relationship to Conceptions of Good Teaching

Many courses aim to promote reflective thinking or reflection upon practice, but there is a scarcity of readily usable instruments to determine whether students engage in reflective thinking and, if so, to what extent. This paper reports the development and testing of such an instrument. To ensure validity, the constructs measured were derived from the extensive literature on reflective thinking, particularly the writing of Mezirow. A combination of the literature review and initial testing led to the development of a four-scale instrument measuring four constructs; habitual action, understanding, reflection and critical reflection. The final version of the instrument was tested with a sample of 303 students from eight classes of a health science faculty. The reliability of the scales was established by acceptable Cronbach alpha values. Confirmatory factor analysis showed a good fit to the proposed four-factor structure. Comparison of mean scores between the eight classes showed predicted significant diff...

Development of a Questionnaire to Measure the Level of Reflective Thinking

There exists now a voluminous literature that characterises "student learning." Of particular importance to this article are the attempts to categorise and classify underlying conceptions of student learning. Conceptions of student learning have been divided into five hierarchical categories: learning as the quantitative increase in knowledge, learning as memorisation, learning as acquisition of facts and procedures that can be retained and/or utilized in practice, learning as the abstraction of meaning, and learning as an interpretative process aimed at the understanding of reality |28~. Beaty, Dall'Alba and Marton |2~ have subsequently identified the same five conceptions and added a sixth: "changing as a person." These conceptions of learning are important because of the evidence that they have a strong influence upon the study approach students use for particular study tasks |for example, 34~. The terms "surface" and "deep" are now commonly used to describe student approaches to learning after the pioneering work of Marton and Saljo |23~. With the surface approach the student concentrates upon the surface features of a text or study task, resulting in a tendency toward a reproductive orientation to study tasks: the student attempts to memorise material thought likely to be relevant to examination questions. A deep approach, on the other hand, is evidenced when students concentrate upon the underlying meaning of readings or projects, usually because of an intrinsic interest in the material. We might want to speculate whether there is a similar relationship between conceptions or orientations to teaching and the way courses are taught, for this relationship might, in turn, affect the quality of student learning. There has been less research, however, into corresponding classifications for teaching. Because it is now widely agreed that teaching does have a profound effect on student learning, such work could be quite useful. There is now a substantial body of evidence on the effect of teaching method, learning tasks, assessment demands, and workload on student approaches to learning. Observations that students make heavy use of reproductive approaches have been found to coincide with factors such as: high workloads |6, 7~; surface-level assessment demands |9, 33~; low levels of intrinsic interest in the course |10~; and lack of freedom in the learning environment |27~. In this article we discuss data from a questionnaire we developed, which identifies two orientations to lecturers' teaching at institutions of higher education: "knowledge transmission" and "learning facilitation." The learning facilitation orientation is made up of five subscales with labels: problem solving, more interactive teaching, facilitative teaching, pastoral interest, and motivator of students. The knowledge transmission orientation has four subscales: training for specific jobs, use of media, imparting information, and knowledge of subject. We go on to relate data from this questionnaire to results of longitudinal surveys on the quality of student learning using the Biggs |3~ Study Process Questionnaire (SPQ). This instrument incorporates scales that examine the extent to which deep and surface approaches to study are employed. We believe that our study does establish a relationship between lecturers' orientations to teaching and the quality of student learning. Pratt |26~ has recently reported a phenomenographic study of the conceptions of teaching of adult educators. He suggests five classifications for conceptions of teaching: delivering content, modelling ways of being, cultivating the intellect, facilitating personal agency, and seeking a better society. Our orientations are rather broader than Pratt's conceptions but there is a correspondence between our "knowledge transmission" orientation and Pratt's "delivering content" conception. Our learning facilitation orientation seems to encompass both the "cultivating the intellect" and the "facilitating personal agency" conceptions. …

David Kember

Papers

The revised two-factor study process questionnaire : R-SPQ-2F

A reconceptualisation of the research into university academics' conceptions of teaching

Lecturers’ Approaches to Teaching and their Relationship to Conceptions of Good Teaching

Development of a Questionnaire to Measure the Level of Reflective Thinking

Orientations to Teaching and Their Effect on the Quality of Student Learning