Aspectos relacionados a las condiciones psicosociales del oficio

I analysed the 27 statements from Round 2 for the extent of support they received from panel members. A statement strongly supported by the panel with all responses of 4 (agree) or 5 (strongly agree) was considered to show strong consensus.

Statements showing lesser consensus included ‘neither agree nor disagree’ responses, in the absence of any disagreement. A statement receiving a difference of opinion, including 1 (strongly disagree) or 2 (disagree), was considered to show little (or lack of)

consensus. Most statements about quality teaching in science, and how students learn science, met the criteria for strong consensus. A few showed lesser consensus and one showed little (or lack of) consensus. Statements are ordered below according to the strength of responses.

How students learn science

Under the heading ‘How students learn science’, five statements were supported by a strong consensus, and one further statement received a lesser consensus. A lack of consensus was found for one item: using prescribed laboratory experiments that are guaranteed to work. Table 7 summarises these statements and their strength of support by panel members. The frequencies of panel members’ responses for these statements are shown in Figure 8 in relative order of agreement (with the most strongly supported statements on the left of the graph).

Table 7. Delphi study Round 2 statements and strength of panel members’ responses to ‘Students learn science by . . . ’

Strength of

support Statement following the stem ‘Students learn science by . . . ’ Strong

consensus (i) adding connections to their prior knowledge, knowledge in other subjects, and life outside the University (ii) understanding the scientific process and how to formulate hypotheses, design experiments to test these, interpret experimental data and revise hypotheses

(iii) being motivated and wanting to learn for intrinsic or extrinsic reasons (iv) completing exercises, assignments and solving problems

(v) seeing and hearing the evidence of science from authorities ranging from parents to lecturers and from other forms of authority such as television and Wikipediaa

Lesser

consensus (vi) a variety of different methods, reflecting differences in their educational background, culture and personality Lack of

Consensus (a) doing prescribed laboratory experiments that are guaranteed to work.

a_{This statement received all ‘Agree’ responses so fulfils the criteria for strong consensus,}

however, as it was the only statement to receive no ‘Strongly agree’ responses it appears on the right of Figure 8 as priority for data is based on the frequencies of ‘Strongly agree’ then ‘Agree’.

Figure 8. Delphi study Round 2 responses to the question ‘Students learn science by . . . ’. Bar colours indicate frequency of the responses ’strongly agree’, ‘agree’, ‘neither’, ‘disagree’ and ‘strongly disagree’ as shown in the legend on the Figure. Statements follow ‘students learn science by . . . ’ and are shown in abbreviated form with full versions given in Table 7. Note: The presence of any ‘disagree’ or ‘strongly disagree’ responses indicates lack of consensus; the presence of any ‘neither’ responses, in the absence of any disagreement indicates a lesser consensus; all responses of ‘agree’ and ‘strongly agree’ indicate strong consensus. The priority for data is based on the

frequencies of ‘Strongly agree’ then ‘Agree’.

Characteristics of quality teaching in science

Nine statements under the heading ‘Characteristics of quality teaching in science’ were supported by a strong consensus with three further statements receiving a lesser consensus. There was a lack of consensus on one statement: using lectures with demonstrations and activities at intervals to refocus the class. Table 8 summarises these statements and their strength of support by panel members. The frequencies of panel members’ responses for these statements are shown in Figure 9 in relative order of agreement (the most strongly supported the statements are on the left of the graph). 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Fr eque nc y o f r es po ns e

Table 8. Delphi study Round 2 statements and strength of panel members’ responses to ‘Quality teaching in science at university means . . . ’

Strength of

support Statements following the stem ‘Quality teaching in science at university means . . . ’

Strong

consensus (ii) providing authentic scientific experiences by connecting students with current research (i) providing opportunities for students to explore and discover

(iii) using inquiry based learning (or guided inquiry)

(viii) helping students to learn to become independent in the laboratory by asking students to design their own experiment, then carry it out themselves and critique the strengths and weaknesses of their experimental design, as well as the results and conclusions

(vii) providing opportunities for students to be more critical of information than they may have been previously

(vi) providing opportunities for students to reflect on their learning (v) being interactive and breaking down the barriers between lecturer and student to create a relaxed atmosphere in which the student can learn (iv) providing opportunities for students to apply knowledge from one area to another

(ix) encouraging students to discuss their own experiences of the topic Lesser

consensus (x) interacting with students, including provision of pastoral care

(xi) engaging with Māori (indigenous people of New Zealand) and Pasifika (people originating in the Pacific Islands) students and helping these students to make connections to their own lives

(xii) students learning about the history of New Zealand and the impacts of humans on the environment, and being encouraged to consider current issues at a philosophical level

Lack of

Figure 9. Delphi study Round 2 responses to the question ‘Quality teaching in science at university means . . . ’ Bar colours indicate frequency of the responses ’strongly agree’, ‘agree’, ‘neither’, ‘disagree’ and ‘strongly disagree’ as shown in the legend on the Figure. Statements are shown in abbreviated form with full versions given in Table 8. Note: The presence of any ‘disagree’ or ‘strongly disagree’ responses indicates lack of consensus; the presence of any ‘neither’ responses, in the absence of any

disagreement indicates a lesser consensus; all responses of ‘agree’ and ‘strongly agree’ indicate strong consensus.

Preparation for working in science

The greatest disagreement about statements is found under the heading ‘Preparation for working in science’ with one statement receiving strong consensus, two statements with a lesser consensus and four with a lack of consensus. Table 9 summarises these statements and their strength of support from panel members.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Fr eque nc y o f r es po ns e

Table 9. Delphi study Round 2 statements and strength of panel members’ responses to views on preparation for working in science

Strength of

support Statement following the stem ‘Current methods of teaching science prepare students WELL/POORLY* for the wider world of using science/working in the science field because . . . ’

Strong

consensus (i) students often work in silence . . . The labs may deliver some useful skill sets, but they do nothing to capture the excitement of real science Lesser

consensus (ii) there is too little authentic science, for example, independent project work, internships, ‘scenario’ assessments

(iii) ongoing mutually-supportive relationships between

universities/Institutions and stakeholder industries ensure that programme content and delivery is developed so it is relevant to students, up to date and responsive to industry needs

Lack of consensus

(a) inquiry-based learning strategies require sophisticated teaching and skilful teachers and are often the province of expert teachers which beginning academics are usually not

(b) authentic tasks are being used, for example, internships, ‘scenario’ assessments and independent project work where experiments may not work and original thought is required to overcome obstacles

(c) content is over-emphasised and the development of lasting mastery of the discipline is questionable

(d) a ‘traditional’ lecture . . . does little to challenge enquiring minds, or to improve the creative and critical thinking skills

*text in italics indicates statements related to the stem ‘Current methods of teaching science prepare

students WELL for the wider world of using science/working in the science field because . . . ’. Normal text indicates statements related to the stem ‘Current methods of teaching science prepare students POORLY for the wider world of using science/working in the science field because . . . ’

Given that supported statements (i) and (ii) are couched negatively, and statements with a lack of consensus show some discomfort with both traditional and more active learning methods, it seems that panellists are not overly convinced that current teaching methods prepare undergraduate students very well for working in science. The frequencies of these responses are shown in Figure 10 in relative order of

agreement (the most strongly supported statements are on the left of the graph). The presence of ‘Disagree’ (orange) on this Figure represents statements with a lack of consensus.

Figure 10. Delphi study Round 2 responses to the question ‘Current methods of teaching science prepare students WELL/POORLY for the wider world of using

science/working in the science field because . . . ’ Bar colours indicate frequency of the responses ’strongly agree’, ‘agree’, ‘neither’, ‘disagree’ and ‘strongly disagree’ as shown in the legend on the Figure. Statements are shown in abbreviated form with full versions given in Table 9. Note: one panel member did not respond to this question on the survey.

Lecturers’ justifications for responses

The comments section in the second questionnaire provided space for panel members’ to support their views or give reasons for disagreement. These comments helped to modify statements for the Round 3 questionnaire which was expected to yield (1) a draft version of the proposed national lecturer survey for Phase 2 and (2) the

framework for understanding quality teaching and learning in undergraduate science. For example, there was a lack of consensus about the statement ‘content is over- emphasised and the development of lasting mastery of the discipline is questionable’:

Usually the trap of the beginning teacher and required to produce grades at entry level classes- e.g. into medicine but less of an issue at advanced degree levels 300 and post graduate. (Panel member 5)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Fr eque nc y o f r es po ns e

This helped to modify the original statement to ‘focusing more on understanding concepts and not over-emphasising content’. Similarly, there was a lack of consensus about the statement that inquiry-based learning strategies require skilful and often expert teachers:

Frequently new staff have been taught and succeeded in a traditional context - it takes time and confidence for them to believe they can use alternative methods. (Panel member 5)

This led to the statement being modified to recognize that alternative methods to lectures can take time and confidence to plan and implement.

Also, there was a lack of consensus about the statement ‘doing prescribed laboratory experiments that are guaranteed to work’ as illustrated in the following three quotes:

they do these as the basis to learn techniques at entry level degree teaching (Panel member 5)

When a prescribed laboratory is guaranteed to work, learning is likely to be lower in other experiments in which the outcome is often uncertain. A series of perfect experiments over the course of labs may develop knowledge of content being taught but will not necessarily generate learning about the scientific process . . . (Panel member 7)

This is the least good way for students learning from experiments. Many students escape learning. (Panel member 3)

This led to the statement being modified to have two statements: this at entry-level to learn techniques (new statement) and a separate statement for scientific process to cover techniques and process.

I collated panel members’ open text feedback to Round 2 describing their reasons for disagreeing with survey statements, and rephrased or split some statements to clarify meaning in response to this feedback. I also carefully rephrased, without changing the meaning, some responses from questions on how students learn science and how well current teaching methods prepare students for working in science, to focus on quality teaching. Hence, Round 2 and the panel’s feedback on Round 2 provided the basis for the final statements for the Round 3 questionnaire.