چارچوب فعالیت‌های یادگیری اعضای هیأت‌علمی در برنامه‌های درسی توسعه حرفه‌ای در رشته‌های علمی STEM

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری برنامه‌ریزی درسی، دانشکده روانشناسی و علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه تهران؛

2 استادیار گروه روش‎ها و برنامه‌های آموزشی، دانشکدة روانشناسی و علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه تهران؛

3 دانشیار گروه روش‎ها و برنامه‌های آموزشی، دانشکدة روانشناسی و علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه تهران؛

4 دانشیار گروه دانشکده روانشناسی و علوم تربیتی دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد؛

5 استادیار گروه روش‎ها و برنامه‌های آموزشی، دانشکدة روانشناسی و علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه تهران

چکیده

هدف: این پژوهش با رویکردی کیفی و پژوهشی تطبیقی و تحلیلی-تبیینی در پی تدوین چارچوبی برای فعالیت‌های یادگیری اعضای هیأت‌علمی در برنامه‌های درسی توسعه حرفه‌ای در رشته‌های علمی علوم پایه، تکنولوژی، مهندسی و ریاضیات است. برای رسیدن به این هدف دو سؤال اصلی مطرح شد. نخست آن‌که دانشگاه‌های پیشرو چه برنامه‌هایی را برای فعالیت‌های یادگیری اعضای هیأت‌علمی تدارک می بینند؟ و سپس اینکه کدام برنامه‌های توسعه حرفه‌ای هم خوانی بیشتری با حوزه رشته‌های علمی STEM دارد.
روش: سؤال اول از طریق پژوهش تطبیقی و روش بردی با کمی تغییرات استفاده شد. در بخش دوم پژوهش با استفاده از رویکرد تحلیلی تببینی مشخصات برنامه‌های توسعه حرفه‌ای در حوزه رشته‌های علمی STEM استخراج و همخوانی برنامه‌های دانشگاه‌های پیشرو بررسی شد نمونه‌گیری از نوع هدفمند معیاری بود. معیار انتخاب داشتن مرکز یادگیری و تدریس در دانشگاه‌های پیش‎رو بود.
یافتهها: دانشگاه‌ها در مجموع چهار حیطه برنامه‌های توسعه حرفه‌ای را دنبال می‌کنند: الف) برنامه‌هایی مبتنی بر تعاملات ب) برنامه‌هایی در راستای پشتیبانی های مالی و غیرمالی ج) برنامه‌هایی مبتنی بر خدمات انلاین و د) خودکاوی روایتی. در بخش دوم پژوهش یافته‌ها نشان داد که تدریس و یادگیری اعضای هیأت‌علمی در حوزه STEM در دانشگاه برکلی و آموزش مبتنی بر یادگیری‌های الکترونیکی (MOOCS) در دانشگاه‌های مالزی، هنگ کنگ و ژاپن هم‌خوانی بیشتری با این حوزه رشته‌های علمی دارد. در پایان مدلی مفهومی استخراج و توصیه شد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


References:

 

Alshynbayevaa, Z., Sarbassovaa, K., Galiyevaa, T., Astin, A. W. and Astin, H. S. (2016). Undergraduate science education: The impact of different college environments on the educational pipeline in the sciences.Los Angeles, CA:University of California, Graduate Schoolof Education, Higher Education Research Institute.

Barak, M. and  Shakhman, L. (2008).Reform-based sciene teaching:teachers’ instructional practices and conceptions. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics. Science and  Technology Education, 4(1): 11-20.

Bikbulatovaa,V;Orlovaa,I; Rabadanovaa,R; Shishova,S and Yulina,G.(2016). On Anticipatory Development of Dual Education Based on the Systemic Approachinternational journal of environmental and  science education. 11(15): 8599-8605.

Bukaliya, R. (2012). Assessing the effectiveness of student representative councils in open and distance learning: a case for Zimbabwe in open university.International journal on new trends in educationand their implications,3 (1):80-90.

Cassum, Shanaz H. and  Begum Gul, R. (2017).Creating Enabling Environment for Student Engagement:Faculty Practices of Critical Thinking. International Journal of Higher Education. 6(1): 101-111.

Chalmers, D., Stoney, S, Goody, A, Goerke, V and  Gardiner, D. (2012).Identification and implementation of indicators and measures of effectiveness of teaching preparation programs for academics in higher education (Ref: SP10-1840) Final report 2012. Officefor Learning and Teaching, Sydney. Viewed at: http://www.worldclasseducation.uwa.edu.au/__data/assets/file/0004/2273692/Final-Report-Teaching-Preparation-Programs-Project.pdf.

Chang, M., Sharkness, J., Newman, C. and  Hurtado, S. (2014). What matters in college for retaining aspiringscientists and engineers from underrepresented racial groups.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51: 555-580.

Chen Chen, J.C (2013). Opportunities and Challenges of MOOCS: Perspectives From Asia. IFLA WLIC,

Coates, H., Kelly, P. and  Naylor, R. (2016). New Perspectives on the Student Experience (DraftReport).Viewed http://melbournecshe. unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/ pdf_file/0011/1862228/New Perspectives-on-the-Student-Experience_240316_updated.pdf.

D’Avanzo, C. (2013). Post-vision and change: do we know how to change?CBE Life. Sciences Education,12(3): 373-382.

Dancy, M, and  Henderson, C (2010).Pedagogical practices and instructional changen of physics faculty.American Journal of Physics, 78(10): 1056.

Department of Education and Trainin. (2015). Higher Education Funding in Australia: A reviewof reviews from Dawkins to today. Viewed at : https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/higher_education_in_australia_-_a_review_of_reviews.pdf.

Eddy, SL. and  Hogan, KA (2014). Getting under the hood: how and for whom does increasing course structure work?.Cell Biology Education, 13(3): 453-468.

Eisner, Elliot (1985). The Educational Imagination. Third Edition. MacMillan Publishing Company. New York.

Fairweather, J. (2010). Linking evidence and promising practices in STEM undergraduate education. Research in Higher Education 26: 227-298.

Freeman, S, Eddy, SL, McDonough, M, Smith, MK, Okoroafor, N, Jordt,H,Wenderoth, MP. (2014).Active learning increases student performance in science,engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(23), 8410–5.

Greener, S. L. and  Wakefield, C. (2015). Developing confidence in the use of digital tools in teaching.Electronic Journal of e-Learning.Vol. 13.No.4, pp.206-267.

Hall, C., Dickerson, J., Batts, D., Kauffman, P., and  Bosse, M. (2011). Are we missing opportunities to encourageinterest in STEM fields?Journal of Technology Education.23.

Handelsman,J, Ebert-may, D, Beichner, R, Bruns, P, Chang,A,Dehaan,R,Wood,WB. (2004). Scientific teaching. Science.304, 521–522.

James, R, Baik, C, Millar, V, Naylor, R, Bexley, E, Kennedy, G, Krause, K-L, Hughes-Warrington, M, Sadler, D and  Booth, S. (2015). Advancing the quality and status of teaching in Australian higher education.Office for Teaching and Learning, Sydney.

Karaman,Mehmet and Kuzu,Abdullah. (2016).E-MENTORING FOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS: A CASE STUDY. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education-TOJDE July 2016 ISSN 1302-6488 Volume: 17 Number: 3 Article 6.Pp 76-89.

Keys, C, and  Bryan, L. (2001) Co-constructing inquiry-based science with teachers:essential research for lasting reform.Journal of Research in Science Teaching.38(6). 631–645.

Klein, F. M. (1991). A perspective on the gap between curriculum theory andpractice. Theory Into Practice (TIP). XXX١(٣), ١٩١-١٩٧.

Kober,N. (2015).Reaching Students:What Research Says About EffectiveInstruction in Undergraduate Science and Engineering.National Academies Press.

Kuh, G. D., and  Hu, S. (2001). The effects of student-faculty interaction in the 1990s. The Review of Higher Education,24, 309-332.

Lisa,Thomas;Kathryn,Harden-Thew;Janine, Delahunty and Bonnie Amelia, Dean. (2016). A vision of You-topia: Personalising professional development of teaching in a diverse academic workforce.,Journal of University Teaching and  Learning Practice, 13.

Maltese, A. V., and  Tai, R. H. (2011). Pipeline persistence: Examining the association of educational experienceswith earned degrees in STEM among U.S. students. Science Education, 95, 877–907.

Newman, C. (2011). Engineering success: The role of faculty relationships with African American undergraduates.Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering.17.193-207.papers/Mundry.pdf.

Pelch, Michael A and McConnell, David A. (2016). Challenging instructors to change: a mixed methods investigation on the effects of material development on the pedagogical beliefs of geoscience instructors. International Journal of STEM Education. Vol3. N05.Pp1-18.

Penuel, WR, Fishman, BJ, Yamaguchi, R, and  Gallagher, LP (2007). What makes professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation. American Educational Research Journal.44(4), 921–958.

Ragupathi, K and  Hubball, H. (2015). Scholarly approaches to learningtechnology integration in a research-intensiveuniversity context: Impact of a new faculty initiative. Transformative Dialogues: Teaching and  Learning Journal, Vol.8,No.1.pp1-16.

Raina, Khatri;, Charles, Henderson; Renee, Cole;, Jeffrey E, Froyd; Debra, Friedrichsen and Courtney, Stanford. (2017). Characteristics of well-propagated teachinginnovations in undergraduate STEM. International Journal of STEM Education.Vol4.No2.Pp1-10.

Rask, K. (2010). Attrition in STEM fields at a liberal arts college: The importance of grades and pre-collegiatepreferences.Economics of Education Review, Vol29.892-900.

Reilly,J;Gallaghe,S ans Berg,R. (2012). Faculty Development for E-learning: A Multi-campus Community of Practice (COP) Approach. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks.Vol16:Issue 2.Pp:99-110.

Richter, D, Kunter, M, Klusmann, U, Lüdtke, O, and  Baumert, J. (2011).Professional development across the teaching career: teachers’ uptake of formal and informal learning opportunities. Teaching and Teacher Education,27, 116-126.

Rodríguez, D. (2017). The Drive to Influence. International Journal of Educational Leadership and Management, 5(1), 59-84. Doi: 10.17583/ijelm.2017.2231.

Ross, B, Carbone, A, Lindsay, K, Drew, S, Phelan, L, Cottman, C and  Stoney, S. (2016).Developing educational goals: insights from a Peer Assisted Teaching Scheme.International Journal for Academic Development. doi:10.1080/1360144X.2016.1189427.

Sa'eif, A. (2008). The method of research in the social sciences. Second book. Tehran: Samt[In Persian].

Salerni, A. (2014). Narrative writing and university internship program. Procedia social and behavioral.sciences 140: 133-137.

Shields, P. and Rangarjan, N. (2013). A Playbook for Research Methods: Integrating Conceptual Frameworks and Project Management.. Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press. chapter Five for an extensive discussion of exploratory research.

Siekmann, G. and  Korbel, P. (2016). Defining ‘STEM’ skills: review and synthesis of the literature — support document 2, NCVER, Adelaide.©Commonwealth of Australia.

Singer, S. and  Smith, KA (2013). Discipline-based education research: understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(4): 468-471.

Sithole, Alec, Chiyak, Edward T;McCarthy, Peter;Mupinga, Davison M;Bucklein, Brian and Kibirige, Joachim. (2017). Student Attraction, Persistence and Retention in STEM Programs:Successes and Continuing Challenges.HigherEducation Studies; Vol. 7, No.1.

Swanson,Joan. (2016).THE IMPACT OF TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATIONUPON COLLEGIATE PEDAGOGY FROM THE LENS OF MULTIPLE DISCIPLINES. 13th International Conference on Cognition and Exploratory Learning in Digital Age (CELDA2016).Pp25-32.

Travis,T and Stains,M. (2015).The importance of context: an exploration of factors influencing the adoption of student-centered teaching among chemistry,biology,and physics faculty. Lund and Stains International Journal of STEM Education 2:13.Pp1-21.

Watkins, J., and  Mazur, E. (2013). Retaining students in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics(STEM) majors. Journal of College Science Teaching, 42.36–43.

Welsh, D.H.B., and Dragusin, M. (2013).The new generation of massive open online course (MOOCs) and entrepreneurship education.Small business institute journal. 9(10).

Wieman, C,Perkins, K, and  Gilbert, S. (2010).Transforming science education at large research universities: a case study in progress.Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning.42(2),6–14.

Zanj K. (2013). Developing Effective STEM Professional Development Programs.Journal of Technology Education. 25 No. 1.Pp55-69.