共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 834 毫秒
1.
2.
Erin L. Dolan Samantha L. Elliott Charles Henderson Douglas Curran-Everett Kristen St. John Phillip A. Ortiz 《Innovative Higher Education》2018,43(1):31-39
Discipline-based education research (DBER) is an emergent, interdisciplinary field of scholarship aimed at understanding and improving discipline-specific teaching and learning. The number of DBER faculty members in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) departments has grown rapidly in recent years. Because the interdisciplinary nature of DBER involves social science, senior STEM faculty members may find it challenging to evaluate the quality or impact of DBER scholarship. This essay aims to address this issue by providing guidance on evaluating the scholarly accomplishments of DBER faculty members in a way that is useful to departmental colleagues and administrators during the tenure and promotion evaluation process. 相似文献
3.
Leilani A. Arthurs 《科学教学研究杂志》2019,56(2):118-140
Discipline-based education research (DBER) conducted by faculty within geoscience departments can address identified needs in undergraduate geoscience education. This study explores the evolution of undergraduate geoscience education research (GER) from 1985 to 2016, primarily in terms of the types of published research and secondarily in terms of the insights this literature offers on the evolution of GER as a scholarly discipline. Stokes’ (1997) quadrant model of research types is used as a theoretical framework for the former and Kuhn's (1970) model of disciplinary paradigm for the latter. An exploratory sequential mixed-methods approach to a systematic literature review of 1,760 articles is utilized. The period 1985–2000 is characterized by proto-research as evidenced by the abundance of instructive and informational education articles rather than research articles. From 2000 to 2011, GER underwent a growth period characterized by the presence of applied, use-inspired, and pure basic research. The period 2011–2016 appears to be a period of relative steady-state conditions in the normalized number of GER publications per year. Existing gaps in knowledge about geoscience education, the evident unfamiliarity with education and social science research methodologies among authors of GER articles, and efforts to build consensus about what GER is and how to conduct it suggest that GER is preparadigmatic or at a low paradigm state. That is, GER is an immature discipline as far as the evolution of a discipline goes. A path forward is proposed for the continued evolutionary growth of GER. This study provides new perspectives on the emergence of GER as a discipline that can be used as a basis for studies on cross-disciplinary DBER comparisons. 相似文献
4.
5.
Charlene D’Avanzo 《CBE life sciences education》2013,12(3):373-382
The scale and importance of Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education: A Call to Action challenges us to ask fundamental questions about widespread transformation of college biology instruction. I propose that we have clarified the “vision” but lack research-based models and evidence needed to guide the “change.” To support this claim, I focus on several key topics, including evidence about effective use of active-teaching pedagogy by typical faculty and whether certain programs improve students’ understanding of the Vision and Change core concepts. Program evaluation is especially problematic. While current education research and theory should inform evaluation, several prominent biology faculty–development programs continue to rely on self-reporting by faculty and students. Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) faculty-development overviews can guide program design. Such studies highlight viewing faculty members as collaborators, embedding rewards faculty value, and characteristics of effective faculty-development learning communities. A recent National Research Council report on discipline-based STEM education research emphasizes the need for long-term faculty development and deep conceptual change in teaching and learning as the basis for genuine transformation of college instruction. Despite the progress evident in Vision and Change, forward momentum will likely be limited, because we lack evidence-based, reliable models for actually realizing the desired “change.”
All members of the biology academic community should be committed to creating, using, assessing, and disseminating effective practices in teaching and learning and in building a true community of scholars. (American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 2011 , p. 49)Realizing the “vision” in Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education (Vision and Change; AAAS, 2011 ) is an enormous undertaking for the biology education community, and the scale and critical importance of this challenge prompts us to ask fundamental questions about widespread transformation of college biology teaching and learning. For example, Vision and Change reflects the consensus that active teaching enhances the learning of biology. However, what is known about widespread application of effective active-teaching pedagogy and how it may differ across institutional and classroom settings or with the depth of pedagogical understanding a biology faculty member may have? More broadly, what is the research base concerning higher education biology faculty–development programs, especially designs that lead to real change in classroom teaching? Has the develop-and-disseminate approach favored by the National Science Foundation''s (NSF) Division of Undergraduate Education (Dancy and Henderson, 2007 ) been generally effective? Can we directly apply outcomes from faculty-development programs in other science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines or is teaching college biology unique in important ways? In other words, if we intend to use Vision and Change as the basis for widespread transformation of biology instruction, is there a good deal of scholarly literature about how to help faculty make the endorsed changes or is this research base lacking?In the context of Vision and Change, in this essay I focus on a few key topics relevant to broad-scale faculty development, highlighting the extent and quality of the research base for it. My intention is to reveal numerous issues that may well inhibit forward momentum toward real transformation of college-level biology teaching and learning. Some are quite fundamental, such as ongoing dependence on less reliable assessment approaches for professional-development programs and mixed success of active-learning pedagogy by broad populations of biology faculty. I also offer specific suggestions to improve and build on identified issues.At the center of my inquiry is the faculty member. Following the definition used by the Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education (www.podnetwork.org), I use “faculty development” to indicate programs that emphasize the individual faculty member as teacher (e.g., his or her skill in the classroom), scholar/professional (publishing, college/university service), and person (time constraints, self-confidence). Of course, faculty members work within particular departments and institutions, and these environments are clearly critical as well (Stark et al., 2002 ). Consequently, in addition to focusing on the individual, faculty-development programs may also consider organizational structure (such as administrators and criteria for reappointment and tenure) and instructional development (the overall curriculum, who teaches particular courses). In fact, Diamond (2002) emphasizes that the three areas of effort (individual, organizational, instructional) should complement one another in faculty-development programs. The scope of the numerous factors impacting higher education biology instruction is a realistic reminder about the complexity and challenge of the second half of the Vision and Change endeavor.This essay is organized around specific topics meant to be representative and to illustrate the state of the art of widespread (beyond a limited number of courses and institutions) professional development for biology faculty. The first two sections focus on active teaching and biology students’ conceptual understanding, respectively. The third section concerns important elements that have been identified as critical for effective STEM faculty-development programs. 相似文献
6.
Sara E. Brownell Scott Freeman Mary Pat Wenderoth Alison J. Crowe 《CBE life sciences education》2014,13(2):200-211
Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education outlined five core concepts intended to guide undergraduate biology education: 1) evolution; 2) structure and function; 3) information flow, exchange, and storage; 4) pathways and transformations of energy and matter; and 5) systems. We have taken these general recommendations and created a Vision and Change BioCore Guide—a set of general principles and specific statements that expand upon the core concepts, creating a framework that biology departments can use to align with the goals of Vision and Change. We used a grassroots approach to generate the BioCore Guide, beginning with faculty ideas as the basis for an iterative process that incorporated feedback from more than 240 biologists and biology educators at a diverse range of academic institutions throughout the United States. The final validation step in this process demonstrated strong national consensus, with more than 90% of respondents agreeing with the importance and scientific accuracy of the statements. It is our hope that the BioCore Guide will serve as an agent of change for biology departments as we move toward transforming undergraduate biology education.
The intent of the Vision and Change conversations and national conference was to move toward a consensus framework in the biology community that would be broadly adaptable, given the unique structures, capacities, and constraints of individual life sciences programs … We pose these core concepts … as a resource and starting point based on the collective experience and wisdom of a broad national community of biological scientists and educators.Vision and Change (AAAS, 2011 , p. 11)Biology is without question the most diverse of the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines. What began as an observational science has blossomed into a wide-ranging set of subdisciplines, each with its own set of key concepts, experimental techniques, and approaches to the study of life. The discipline is currently so segmented that biologists who work in particular subdisciplines attend separate scientific meetings, publish in specialty journals, and are sometimes housed in different departments.The rapid expansion and increased diversity of the field has greatly expanded the scope and impact of biological discoveries but creates a challenge for instructors. The exponential rate of discovery in biology makes it difficult to decide what to teach in a 4-yr undergraduate curriculum. Given that we cannot teach everything, can we reach consensus about what is most important to teach? 相似文献
7.
8.
在分析高等教育质量及质量观的基础上,对地方理工科院校本科教育的本质特征和质量内涵进行分析与论述,认为地方理工科院校本科教育应构建以应用性为主体、地方性为主位、行业性为主导、实践性为主载的"四位一体"的教育。提出了地方理工科院校本科教育质量提升策略,即:以需求为主导,以互动为纽带,着力创新应用型人才培养模式;以学科为依托,以应用为核心,着力开发应用型本科教育课程体系;以教师为关键,以实践为重点,着力打造理论与实践"融合型"师资队伍;以能力为取向,以多样为原则,着力构建应用型本科教育人才质量评价体系。 相似文献
9.
John D. Clements Nancy D. Connell Clarissa Dirks Mohamed El-Faham Alastair Hay Elizabeth Heitman James H. Stith Enriqueta C. Bond Rita R. Colwell Lida Anestidou Jo L. Husbands Jay B. Labov 《CBE life sciences education》2013,12(4):596-603
Numerous studies are demonstrating that engaging undergraduate students in original research can improve their achievement in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields and increase the likelihood that some of them will decide to pursue careers in these disciplines. Associated with this increased prominence of research in the undergraduate curriculum are greater expectations from funders, colleges, and universities that faculty mentors will help those students, along with their graduate students and postdoctoral fellows, develop an understanding and sense of personal and collective obligation for responsible conduct of science (RCS). This Feature describes an ongoing National Research Council (NRC) project and a recent report about educating faculty members in culturally diverse settings (Middle East/North Africa and Asia) to employ active-learning strategies to engage their students and colleagues deeply in issues related to RCS. The NRC report describes the first phase of this project, which took place in Aqaba and Amman, Jordan, in September 2012 and April 2013, respectively. Here we highlight the findings from that report and our subsequent experience with a similar interactive institute in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Our work provides insights and perspectives for faculty members in the United States as they engage undergraduate and graduate students, as well as postdoctoral fellows, to help them better understand the intricacies of and connections among various components of RCS. Further, our experiences can provide insights for those who may wish to establish “train-the-trainer” programs at their home institutions. 相似文献
10.
Integration of inquiry-based approaches into curriculum is transforming the way science is taught and studied in undergraduate classrooms. Incorporating quantitative reasoning and mathematical skills into authentic biology undergraduate research projects has been shown to benefit students in developing various skills necessary for future scientists and to attract students to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics disciplines. While large-scale data analysis became an essential part of modern biological research, students have few opportunities to engage in analysis of large biological data sets. RNA-seq analysis, a tool that allows precise measurement of the level of gene expression for all genes in a genome, revolutionized molecular biology and provides ample opportunities for engaging students in authentic research. We developed, implemented, and assessed a series of authentic research laboratory exercises incorporating a large data RNA-seq analysis into an introductory undergraduate classroom. Our laboratory series is focused on analyzing gene expression changes in response to abiotic stress in maize seedlings; however, it could be easily adapted to the analysis of any other biological system with available RNA-seq data. Objective and subjective assessment of student learning demonstrated gains in understanding important biological concepts and in skills related to the process of science. 相似文献
11.
In this editorial we link the articles published in this Special Issue with the framework from Vision and Change and summarize findings from the editorial process of assembling the Special Issue.The authors of Vision and Change (American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 2011 ) issued the following call to action to biologists, physicists, chemists, and mathematicians:
To ensure that all students graduate with a basic level of scientific literacy and meet the challenges raised in Bio 2010: Transforming Undergraduate Education for Future Research Biologists (2003), Scientific Foundations for Future Physicians: Report of the AAMC-HHMI Committee (2009), A New Biology for the 21st Century (2009), and similar reports, biologists, physicists, chemists, and mathematicians need to look thoughtfully at ways they can introduce interdisciplinary approaches into their gateway courses. (AAAS, 2011 , p 54)The articles that comprise this special issue of CBE—Life Sciences Education (LSE) take important steps toward responding to this call by describing teaching and learning at the intersection of biology and physics. Broadly defined, the work aims to encourage the development of genuine interdisciplinary understanding, or “the capacity to integrate knowledge and modes of thinking in two or more disciplines or established areas of expertise to produce a cognitive advancement … in ways that would have been impossible or unlikely through single disciplinary means” (Boix Mansilla and Duraisingh, 2007 , p. 219). Indeed, many of the most exciting recent breakthroughs in the life sciences have occurred at the intersection of these established disciplines. Physical laws help to predict, describe, and explain biological phenomena occurring at molecular to ecosystem levels, and the development of new physical tools helps to visualize these phenomena in new and informative ways. Thus, the Vision and Change report stresses the urgency for undergraduate biology and physics educators to develop, assess, and revise content materials, pedagogical strategies, and epistemological perspectives for encouraging student learning in interdisciplinary biology and physics classes.We received more than 50 abstracts in response to the call for this special issue, and we are pleased to publish 10 Articles, four Essays, and eight Features reflecting the state of educational transformation at the intersection of biology and physics. Several articles describe integration of physics into biology curriculum or biology into physics curriculum that goes beyond simple provision of examples from the respective disciplines (e.g., Batiza et al., Christensen et al., Svoboda Gouvea et al., O’Shea et al., Thompson et al., Breckler et al.). A number of articles address cross-cutting themes, such as problem solving (e.g., Hoskinson et al.) and energy (e.g., Cooper and Klymkowsky, Svoboda Gouvea et al.), the application of mathematical laws to biological phenomena (e.g., Redish and Cooke), epistemology (e.g., Watkins and Elby), and assessment as a powerful tool for driving curriculum change, in this case the integration of physics and biological thinking (e.g., Svoboda Gouvea et al., Momsen et al., Thompson et al.). Other articles reflect research crossing disciplinary boundaries to introduce research approaches (e.g., Watkins and Elby, Momsen et al.) or innovative curriculum models (e.g., Manthey and Brewe, Donovan et al., Thompson et al.) to help students develop reasoning strategies that move beyond traditional disciplinary boundaries. The Hillborn and Friedlander essay highlights potential impacts of cross-disciplinary collaboration in education on the revised Medical College Admission Test.We were pleased by the number of articles coauthored by physicists and biologists working in teams to examine and recommend new directions for the future of biology education. These teams brought a richness and depth of knowledge in both disciplines that made it possible to move instruction and research forward at the intersection of the disciplines. Together, these articles start to provide the evidence base for responding to the calls for interdisciplinary teaching and learning. Further, they provide opportunities to compare and contrast education and epistemologies in biology and physics, allowing for more informed integration of knowledge from these disciplines. 相似文献
12.
13.
吴根洲 《高等工程教育研究》2012,(1):97-100
工学门类全国优秀博士学位论文(NEDD)覆盖了全部32个一级学科,但在各一级学科的分布差异非常明显。高校获得工学门类NEDD的数量远远高于科研机构。工学门类NEDD在70所高校之间的分布极不均衡,在各单位的分布也存在极大的变动性,"马太效应"论难以成立。部分学科的NEDD分布体现出明显的行业特色。工学门类NEDD的分布特征显示我国高等教育从"理工分家"到"理工渗透"的转变并不明显。 相似文献
14.
The BIO2010 report provided a compelling argument for the need to create learning experiences for undergraduate biology students that are more authentic to modern science. The report acknowledged the need for research that could help practitioners successfully create and reform biology curricula with this goal in mind. Our objective in this article was to explore how a set of six design heuristics could be used to evaluate the potential of curricula to support productive learning experiences for science students. We drew on data collected during a long-term study of an undergraduate traineeship that introduced students to mathematical modeling in the context of modern biological problems. We present illustrative examples from this curriculum that highlight the ways in which three heuristics—instructor role-modeling, holding students to scientific norms, and providing students with opportunities to practice these norms—consistently supported learning across the curriculum. We present a more detailed comparison of two different curricular modules and explain how differences in student authority, problem structure, and access to resources contributed to differences in productive engagement by students in these modules. We hope that our analysis will help practitioners think in more concrete terms about how to achieve the goals set forth by BIO2010. 相似文献
15.
Veronica S. Flodin 《Science & Education》2009,18(1):73-94
The purpose of this study is to analyze variations in how the gene concept is used and conceived in different sub-disciplines
in biology. An examination of the development of subject matter and the use of the gene concept in a common college biology
textbook shows that the gene concept is far from presented in a consistent way. The study describes and categorizes five different
gene concepts used in the textbook; the gene as a trait, an information-structure, an actor, a regulator and a marker. These
conceptual differences are not dealt with in an explicit manner. This constitutes one of the sources for confusion when learning
about genes and genetics.
Veronica S. Flodin is currently a Ph D student in science education at Stockholm University, Sweden .She received her BS in Biology 1986 complemented with studies in science of philosophy, language, and PhD-studies in microbiology. She has been involved in teaching university courses in microbiology both at undergraduate and graduate level, worked as course leader and also project leader of a problem based learning education in Biology. Her research interest include different aspects of scientific knowledge in general and in particular the transformation of knowledge from research to education. 相似文献
| Veronica S. FlodinEmail: |
Veronica S. Flodin is currently a Ph D student in science education at Stockholm University, Sweden .She received her BS in Biology 1986 complemented with studies in science of philosophy, language, and PhD-studies in microbiology. She has been involved in teaching university courses in microbiology both at undergraduate and graduate level, worked as course leader and also project leader of a problem based learning education in Biology. Her research interest include different aspects of scientific knowledge in general and in particular the transformation of knowledge from research to education. 相似文献
16.
This article focuses upon programs for undergraduate women in science and engineering, which are a strategic research site
in the study of gender, science, and higher education. The design involves both quantitative and qualitative approaches, linking
theory, method, questions, and analyses in ways not undertaken previously. Using a comprehensive, quantitative, cross-institutional,
and longitudinal method, two extreme groups of programs are distinguished: those associated with the “most successful” and
“least successful” outcomes in undergraduate degrees awarded to women in science and engineering. Qualitative analyses of
interview data with key players in the programs in these two groups point to ways in which definitions of issues, problems,
and solutions diverge (as well as converge), and thus to conceptual underpinnings that have important real-life consequences
in these organizational settings of higher education. The programs that regard issues, problems, and solutions of women in
science and engineering as rooted in “institutional/structural-centered,” as opposed to “individual/student-centered,” perspectives
are associated with the most positive outcomes in undergraduate degrees awarded to women in science and engineering.
相似文献
| Mary Frank FoxEmail: |
17.
18.
Instructors attempting new teaching methods may have concerns that students will resist nontraditional teaching methods. The authors provide an overview of research characterizing the nature of student resistance and exploring its origins. Additionally, they provide potential strategies for avoiding or addressing resistance and pose questions about resistance that may be ripe for research study.
“What if the students revolt?” “What if I ask them to talk to a neighbor, and they simply refuse?” “What if they do not see active learning as teaching?” “What if they just want me to lecture?” “What if my teaching evaluation scores plummet?” “Even if I am excited about innovative teaching and learning, what if I encounter student resistance?”These are genuine concerns of committed and thoughtful instructors who aspire to respond to the repeated national calls to fundamentally change the way biology is taught in colleges and universities across the United States. No doubt most individuals involved in promoting innovative teaching in undergraduate biology education have heard these or variations on these fears and concerns. While some biology instructors may be at a point where they are still skeptical of innovative teaching from more theoretical perspectives (“Is it really any better than lecturing?”), the concerns expressed by the individuals above come from a deeply committed and practical place. These are instructors who have already passed the point where they have become dissatisfied with traditional teaching methods. They have already internally decided to try new approaches and have perhaps been learning new teaching techniques themselves. They are on the precipice of actually implementing formerly theoretical ideas in the real, messy space that is a classroom, with dozens, if not hundreds, of students watching them. Potential rejection by students as they are practicing these new pedagogical skills represents a real and significant roadblock. A change may be even more difficult for those earning high marks from their students for their lectures. If we were to think about a learning progression for faculty moving toward requiring more active class participation on the part of students, the voices above are from those individuals who are progressing along this continuum and who could easily become stuck or turn back in the face of student resistance.Unfortunately, it appears that little systematic attention or research effort has been focused on understanding the origins of student resistance in biology classrooms or the options for preventing and addressing such resistance. As always, this Feature aims to gather research evidence from a variety of fields to support innovations in undergraduate biology education. Below, we attempt to provide an overview of the types of student resistance one might encounter in a classroom, as well as share hypotheses from other disciplines about the potential origins of student resistance. In addition, we offer examples of classroom strategies that have been proposed as potentially useful for either preventing student resistance from happening altogether or addressing student resistance after it occurs, some of which align well with findings from research on the origins of student resistance. Finally, we explore how ready the field of student resistance may be for research study, particularly in undergraduate biology education. 相似文献
19.
20.
There is substantial evidence that scientific teaching in the sciences, i.e. teaching that employs instructional strategies that encourage undergraduates to become actively engaged in their own learning, can produce levels of understanding, retention and transfer of knowledge that are greater than those resulting from traditional lecture/lab classes. But widespread acceptance by university faculty of new pedagogies and curricular materials still lies in the future. In this essay we review recent literature that sheds light on the following questions:
We conclude that widespread promotion and adoption of the elements of scientific teaching by university science departments could have profound effects in promoting a scientifically literate society and a reinvigorated research enterprise. 相似文献
- What has evidence from education research and the cognitive sciences told us about undergraduate instruction and student learning in the sciences?
- What role can undergraduate student research play in a science curriculum?
- What benefits does information technology have to offer?
- What changes are needed in institutions of higher learning to improve science teaching?