شناسایی شاخص های روش های یاددهی و یادگیری مطلوب برای دروس رشته های علوم انسانی دانشگاه ها و میزان توجه به آن ها

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری برنامه‌ریزی درسی در آموزش عالی، دانشگاه اصفهان، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی.

2 استاد گروه علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه اصفهان، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی، اصفهان، ایران.

3 استاد گروه مدیریت آموزشی و توسعه منابع انسانی، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی، مشهد، ایران.

چکیده

پژوهش حاضر با هدف شناسایی شاخص های روش های یاددهی و یادگیری مطلوب برای دروس رشتههای علوم انسانی دانشگاه ها و میزان توجه به آنها انجام شد. در پژوهش حاضر، از طرح ترکیبی و از نوع اکتشافی متوالی استفاده شد. در بخش کیفی، از روش مطالعه موردی و در بخش کمی، از روش توصیفی – پیمایشی بهره گرفته شده است. در بخش کیفی با 20 نفر از متخصصان و اعضای هیئت‌علمی دانشگاه های کشور که در حوزه روش‌های یاددهی و یادگیری اهل نظر هستند، مصاحبه نیمه-ساختاریافته به عمل آمد. جامعه آماری بخش کمی دانشجویان کارشناسی دانشگاهها بودند که به روش خوشه ای چندمرحله ای، تعداد 360 نفر به عنوان نمونه انتخاب شدند. داده های پژوهش در بخش کمی از طریق پرسشنامه محقق ساخته مستخرج از بخش کیفی جمع آوری شد. برای تعیین روایی سؤال‌های مصاحبه و پرسشنامه از روایی صوری و محتوایی و برای برآورد پایایی پرسشنامه از ضریب آلفای کرونباخ استفاده شد. برای تحلیل دادههای پژوهش در بخش کیفی از روش روش های ساختاری و تفسیری و در بخش کمی از آمار توصیفی و استنباطی بهره گرفته شد. نتایج پژوهش نشان داد چهارده شاخص از منظر مصاحبه‌شوندگان مهم‌ترین شاخص های روش‌های یاددهی و یادگیری بودند و می توان از شاخص های شناسایی شده برای ارزشیابی و بازنگری روش های یاددهی و یادگیری دروس رشته‌های علوم انسانی دانشگاه ها استفاده نمود. یافته های کمی نشان داد میانگین توجه به شاخص های روش‌های یاددهی و یادگیری در دروس رشته های علوم انسانی دانشگاهها نامطلوب بوده و نیاز به توجه بیشتری دارد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Identification the Indices of Desirable Teaching and Learning methods regarding the Humanity Courses for Universities and the Extent of attention them

نویسندگان [English]

  • mostafa bagherian far 1
  • Ahmad Reza Nasr Esfahani 2
  • Mohamad Reza Ahanchian 3
1 Ph.D Candidate of Curriculum Studies in higher education, University of Isfahan, Faculty of Education and Psychology.
2 Professor, Department of Education, University of Isfahan, Faculty of Education and Psychology, Isfahan, Iran.
3 Professor, Department of educational management and human resource development, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Faculty of Education and Psychology, Mashhad, Iran.
چکیده [English]

The present study is aimed towards identification the indices of desirable teaching and learning methods in regard with the Humanity Courses for universities and the extent to which these indices are attention. In the present study, exploratory mixed-methods research was used. In the quantitative section, a case study method and in the quantitative section, a descriptive-survey method was employed. For the qualitative section, we underwent quasi-structured interviews with 20 distinguished and qualified experts and faculty members of universities having their expertise in Teaching and Learning methods. Also, 360 of the students of universities comprised the quantitative statistical population. This number of participants was selected using multistage cluster sampling method. The research data were collected in a quantitative part through a researcher-made questionnaire extracted from the qualitative section. To examine the reliability of interview questions and questionnaires, we recruited formal and content reliability. And, we used Cronbach's alpha coefficients to evaluate the validity of our questionnaires. We also employed the Structural and interpretative methods in the qualitative section and descriptive and inferential statistics in the quantitative section to wage on analyzing the data. The results indicated that the interviewees outlined fourteen indices as the salient indices of Teaching and Learning methods and it can be argued that the recognized indices can be recruited to evaluation and revise the Teaching and Learning methods of courses in different majors of the humanities. The quantitative findings also indicated that the range and degree of attention and corresponding to the indices of teaching and learning methods seem to be less than desirable. Therefore, it necessarily requires far more significant attention.
The present study is aimed towards identification the indices of desirable teaching and learning methods in regard with the Humanity Courses for universities and the extent to which these indices are attention. In the present study, exploratory mixed-methods research was used. In the quantitative section, a case study method and in the quantitative section, a descriptive-survey method was employed. For the qualitative section, we underwent quasi-structured interviews with 20 distinguished and qualified experts and faculty members of universities having their expertise in Teaching and Learning methods. Also, 360 of the students of universities comprised the quantitative statistical population. This number of participants was selected using multistage cluster sampling method. The research data were collected in a quantitative part through a researcher-made questionnaire extracted from the qualitative section. To examine the reliability of interview questions and questionnaires, we recruited formal and content reliability. And, we used Cronbach's alpha coefficients to evaluate the validity of our questionnaires. We also employed the Structural and interpretative methods in the qualitative section and descriptive and inferential statistics in the quantitative section to wage on analyzing the data. The results indicated that the interviewees outlined fourteen indices as the salient indices of Teaching and Learning methods and it can be argued that the recognized indices can be recruited to evaluation and revise the Teaching and Learning methods of courses in different majors of the humanities. The quantitative findings also indicated that the range and degree of attention and corresponding to the indices of teaching and learning methods seem to be less than desirable. Therefore, it necessarily requires far more significant attention.
The present study is aimed towards identification the indices of desirable teaching and learning methods in regard with the Humanity Courses for universities and the extent to which these indices are attention. In the present study, exploratory mixed-methods research was used. In the quantitative section, a case study method and in the quantitative section, a descriptive-survey method was employed. For the qualitative section, we underwent quasi-structured interviews with 20 distinguished and qualified experts and faculty members of universities having their expertise in Teaching and Learning methods. Also, 360 of the students of universities comprised the quantitative statistical population. This number of participants was selected using multistage cluster sampling method. The research data were collected in a quantitative part through a researcher-made questionnaire extracted from the qualitative section. To examine the reliability of interview questions and questionnaires, we recruited formal and content reliability. And, we used Cronbach's alpha coefficients to evaluate the validity of our questionnaires. We also employed the Structural and interpretative methods in the qualitative section and descriptive and inferential statistics in the quantitative section to wage on analyzing the data. The results indicated that the interviewees outlined fourteen indices as the salient indices of Teaching and Learning methods and it can be argued that the recognized indices can be recruited to evaluation and revise the Teaching and Learning methods of courses in different majors of the humanities. The quantitative findings also indicated that the range and degree of attention and corresponding to the indices of teaching and learning methods seem to be less than desirable. Therefore, it necessarily requires far more significant attention.
The present study is aimed towards identification the indices of desirable teaching and learning methods in regard with the Humanity Courses for universities and the extent to which these indices are attention. In the present study, exploratory mixed-methods research was used. In the quantitative section, a case study method and in the quantitative section, a descriptive-survey method was employed. For the qualitative section, we underwent quasi-structured interviews with 20 distinguished and qualified experts and faculty members of universities having their expertise in Teaching and Learning methods. Also, 360 of the students of universities comprised the quantitative statistical population. This number of participants was selected using multistage cluster sampling method. The research data were collected in a quantitative part through a researcher-made questionnaire extracted from the qualitative section. To examine the reliability of interview questions and questionnaires, we recruited formal and content reliability. And, we used Cronbach's alpha coefficients to evaluate the validity of our questionnaires. We also employed the Structural and interpretative methods in the qualitative section and descriptive and inferential statistics in the quantitative section to wage on analyzing the data. The results indicated that the interviewees outlined fourteen indices as the salient indices of Teaching and Learning methods and it can be argued that the recognized indices can be recruited to evaluation and revise the Teaching and Learning methods of courses in different majors of the humanities. The quantitative findings also indicated that the range and degree of attention and corresponding to the indices of teaching and learning methods seem to be less than desirable. Therefore, it necessarily requires far more significant attention.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Teaching and Learning methods
  • Curriculum
  • the Humanity Courses in universities
Abell, M. M., Bauder, D. K., and Simmons, T. J. (2005). Access to the general curriculum: A curriculum and instruction perspective for educators. Intervention in school and clinic41(2), 82-86.

AliBigi, A, H., Barani, S. H., and Karamihdakordi, M. (2019). Designing and compiling a comprehensive model for evaluating the quality of teachers' teaching: A case study of Razi University. Quarterly Journal of Research in Curriculum Planning, 63 (4), 21 - 34. [In Persian]

Azizi, N. (2008). Investigating the challenges and failures of university education in the field of humanities reflecting on student opinions. Iranian Higher Education, 1 (2), 1 - 29. [In Persian]

Chan, Z. C., and Tong, C. W., and Henderson, S. (2017). Power dynamics in the student-teacher relationship in clinical settings. Nurse education today49, 174-179.‏

Dehghani, M., Pakmehr, H., and JafariSani, H. (2011). Managerial of challenges curriculum implementation in higher education. Procedia social and behavioral sciences, 15, 2003-2005.

Deslauriers, L., McCarty, L. S., Miller, K., Callaghan, K., and Kestin, G. (2019). Measuring actual learning versus feeling oflearning in response to being actively engaged in the class-room. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116, 19251–19257.

Elen, J., Clarebout, G., Léonard, R., and Lowyck, J. (2007). Student-centred and teacher-centred learning environments: What students think?. Teaching in higher education12(1), 105-117.‏

Evans, C. (2020). Exploiting students’ part-time work to enhance learning, teaching and assessment. Industry and Higher Education, 34(1), 1 - 4.‏

Fischer, E., and Hanze, M. (2019). Back from “guide on the side” to “sage on the stage”? Effects of teacher-guided and student-activating teaching methods on student learning in higher education. International Journal of Educational Research, 95, 26–35.

Fornari, A., and Poznanski, A. (2015). How-to guide for active learning. International Association of Medical Science Educators.

Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., and Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410-8415.

Gershenson, S. (2016). Linking teacher quality, student attendance, and student achievement. Education Finance and Policy, 11(2), 125-149.

Ghanbari, S., and Sultanzadeh, V. (2018). Improving the quality of teaching in the light of evaluation of professors; A reflection on students' perspectives. Teaching and Research, 6 (2), 15 - 31. [In Persian]

Gholami, N. (2019). Investigating the barriers to using active teaching methods and techniques in the teaching-learning process and providing solutions. Master Thesis, Allameh Tabatabai University. [In Persian]

Jordens, J. Z., and Zepke, N. (2009). A network approach to curriculum quality assessment. Quality in higher education, 15(3), 279-289.

Kangas, M., Siklander, P., Randolph, J., and Ruokamo, H. (2017). Teachers' engagement and students' satisfaction with a playful learning environment. Teaching and Teacher Education,63, 274-284.

Keshavarzi, M., Yarmohammadian, M. H., and Nadi, M. A. (2018). Designing a model for teaching methods based on future development, research in higher education in Iran. Journal of New Approach in Educational Management, 8 (4), 157 - 174. [In Persian]

Khaleghkhah, A., Sharif, A., Zahed Babalan, A., and Hashemi, S. Z. (2017). Investigating the effectiveness of jig-saw participatory Learning on self-regulation and educational motivation of elementary students. Journal of Teaching and Learning Studies, 2, 154-182. [In Persian]

Kolb, A. Y. (2005). The Kolb learning style inventory-version 3.1 2005 technical specifications. Boston, MA: Hay Resource Direct, 200(72), 161 – 171.

Koles, P. G., Stolfi, A., Borges, N. J., Nelson, S., and Parmelee, D. X. (2010). The impact of team-based learning on medical students' academic performance. Academic Medicine, 85(11), 1739-1745.

Koles, P., Nelson, S., Stolfi, A., Parmelee, D., and DeStephen, D. (2005). Active learning in a year 2 pathology curriculumMedical education, 39(10), 1045-1055.‏

Kornell, N. (2020). Why and how you should read student evaluations of teaching. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition9(2), 165-169.‏

Lonenberg, F., and Ernststein, A. (2011). Curriculum: Teaching analysis and improvement (translated by the late Mostafa Sharif). University Jihad of Isfahan University. [In Persian]

Loyens, S., and Rikers, R. (2011). Instruction based on inquiry. In R. Mayer and P. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction, 361–381.

Maleki, H. (2013). Introduction to Curriculum Planning. Tehran: Samat Publications. [In Persian]

Naz, F., and Murad, H. S. (2017). Innovative teaching has a positive impact on the performance of diverse students. SAGE Open7(4), 2158244017734022.‏

Nithyanandam, G. K. (2020). A framework to improve the quality of teaching-learning process-A case study. Procedia Computer Science, 172, 92-97.

Oppenheimer, D. M., and Hargis, M. B. (2020). If teaching evaluations don’t measure learning, what do they Do?. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition9(2), 170-174.‏

Parrish, D. R. (2016). Principles and a model for advancing futures studies and student focused. 2nd International Conference on Higher Education Advances, 311 – 315.

Podlahová, L., Vaněčkovv. M., Heřmánková. P., Klement. M., and Marešová, J. (2012). Didaktika pro vysokoškolské učitele. Praha: Grada.

Rampai, N., and Sopeerak, S. (2011). The development model of knowledge management via web based learning to enhance pre- service teacher's competence.The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(3), 249-254.

Renkl, A. (2009). Why constructivists should not talk about constructivist learning environments: A commentary on Loyens and Gijbels (2008). Instructional Science, 37(5), 495–498.

Rossi, D., Van Rensburg, H., Harreveld, R. E., Beer, C., Danaher, P. A., and Clark, D. (2012). Exploring a cross-institutional research collaboration and innovation: Deploying social software and Web 2.0 technologies to investigate online learning designs and interactions in two Australian Universities. Journal of Learning Design5(2), 1-11

Sadeghi Dizaj, E., Hosseini Nasab, S. D., Asgarian, F., ShirAlipour, A., and Maghsoudi, M. R. (2015). Over-analysis of the effectiveness of active teaching methods in the academic performance of Iranian students. Educational Psychology, 35 (1), 79 - 103. [In Persian]

Saif, A. A. (2013). Modern Educational Psychology: Learning and Education Psychology. Tehran: Samat Publications. [In Persian]

Scott, T., and Brysiewicz, P. (2016). African emergency nursing curriculum: Development of a curriculum model. International emergency nursing, 27, 60-63.

Shabani, H. (2011). Educational skills (teaching methods and techniques). Tehran: Doran Publications. [In Persian]

Shabani, H. (2016). Educational skills (teaching methods and techniques. Tehran: Samt Publications. [In Persian]

Sirbu, C. C., Tonea, E., Iancu, T., Pet, E., and Popa, N. D. (2015). Aspects concerning the usage of modern methods for teaching–learning–evaluation in universities. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 182, 550-554.

Smith, L.W., and Van Doren, D.C. (2004). The reality-based learning method: a simple method for keeping teaching activities relevant and effective. Journal of Marketing Education, 26(1), 66-75.

 Sowell, R. (2009). Interactive communication as an element of student success in online college math courses. (Doctoral dissertation, Tennessee State University).

Taghizadeh, S. (2019). Designing an effective teaching model in postgraduate courses in humanities. Doctoral dissertation, Allameh Tabatabai University. [In Persian]

Tomova, S., and Botikova, A. (2017). The use of teaching methods in communication training of nurses at universities. Kontakt19(3), 192-198.‏

Tsaparlis, G. (1998). Dimensional analysis and predictive models in problem solving. International Journal of science Education, 20, 335-350.

Vaughn, L. M., and Baker, R. C. (2008). Do different pairings of teaching styles and learning styles make a difference?. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 20 (3), 239-247.

Wang, C. (2012). Review of babansky’s optimization of the teaching process. Shandong Social Sciences, 10, 188-192.