Aspectos relacionados al manejo del cuerpo

Round 1 used open-ended survey questions (Chapter 3 and Appendix B) to ask the panel members for their views of how students learn science, the characteristics of quality teaching in science and how current methods of teaching science prepare students for working in science. I analysed their responses to each main question with the sensitizing concepts (lenses) to get a sense of the themes that may contribute to conditions for the emergence of quality teaching and learning in science. I present my findings from each of the lenses—problem definition, openness and social complexity (Chapter 3, Table 2)—below.

The problem with defining quality teaching in undergraduate science

The problem definition lens considers the reasons for difficulties with defining quality teaching and learning in undergraduate science and highlighted the panel’s awareness that individual students have different expectations of teaching and learning. Some prefer teaching that focuses on required facts while others focus on scientific process. Such learning and teaching preferences demonstrate the complexity of teaching science and influence how students and lecturers define quality teaching in science. For example, panel members reported:

Different students learn equally effectively through very different methods. So, while one student might require hands-on experimentation in a wet lab, another might make similar progress through private study, using online simulations, or in a classroom where an enthusiastic lecturer challenges the preconceptions students bring with them. (Panel member 2)

And

They [students] try and learn science by memorising facts . . . but they actually learn by UNDERSTANDING the scientific process and how to

formulate hypotheses, design experiments to test the hypotheses, interpret experimental data, revise their hypotheses etc etc. (Emphasis in the

original. Panel member 1)

This lens also highlighted different views on the form of quality laboratory experiences. Although panel members agreed that practical laboratory experience is essential for quality learning and teaching in science, views on the forms this should take differed. Some preferred prescriptive labs for learning specific skills in year 1 whilst others advocated project-based labs for learning scientific thinking skills at all year levels. For example, one panel member summarised the issue with traditional laboratory classes as follows:

Undergraduate laboratories are traditionally run via ‘recipes’ – students are asked to perform particular tasks in a particular order, and can complete the lab without understanding the experimental design. A better way is to ask them 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. (Panel member 1)

Similarly, there were different views on the nature of quality classroom teaching. There were differences about what methods challenge, stimulate, motivate and inspire students. But whether in a traditional lecture environment or an alternative classroom format, panel members described the importance of engaging students:

One of my colleagues’ first year Physics lectures revolve around performing amazing in-class demonstrations. His introductions to them and body language are crafted to give the impression that they might be disastrous failures, or if they did work, they might well cause mayhem and possibly explosions on the front bench. As a result, students sit forward on their seats, entranced, waiting to see if the gallant lecturer will be disabled or possibly incinerated. Many students bring their friends from other courses to experience them. But all are carefully crafted to work, often with an unexpected twist, and are cleverly designed to reinforce some aspect of the course material in a vivid and memorable way. (Panel member 4)

The best example I have ever seen was a foundation biology class at the University of . . . The course uses the flipped classroom model, wherein content is learned by students in their own time from online resources. The daytime instruction uses enquiry based learning in digitally-enhanced active classrooms. Students work in teams to solve real problems using the

The students’ ability to recognise when learning had occurred in non-traditional classes was raised by another:

my own experience . . . indicates that students often fail to recognise the nature and quality of their learning when it occurs gradually over the space of the course. (Panel member 3)

Quality as openness

The openness lens highlights interactions with new information or experiences and suggested that panel members were challenged to help students connect to prior learning, other courses of study, current research in the discipline, industry and future careers. They recognized the importance of connecting science and other aspects of student life such as social clubs and cultural contexts. For example, panel members reported:

In addition to appreciating the knowledge a student brings to the class room, wherever possible I choose teaching materials and activities that relate to the students’ needs and future goals to illustrate how their attained knowledge will help them with their further learning. As adults they want to know why they need to learn something and how it will benefit them. Students tell me that encouraging them to talk about their knowledge and experience and allowing them to apply it to their learning improves their understanding of the new concepts and also leads to more discussion after class. (Emphasis in the original. Panel member 6)

And

Because content dominates teaching at the undergraduate level, the opportunities for acquiring the intellectual culture of science are limited, and students may struggle to learn content in the absence of clear connections to their other content knowledge and to life outside the university. The teaching of content rather than ideas can make it difficult for students to extract meaning from what they are being taught. In these circumstances, students must be enabled to make connections between their prior learning, their current content learning in lectures and labs . . . They must also be given signposts to their future studies so that they can see what they are learning at present will lead them forward into particular areas of study that should extend their interest and lead them into

Quality as relationship

The social complexity lens considers the interactions between people and how these are promoted to produce change. Panellists thought positive social interaction

between lecturers and students and between students, such as in scientific inquiry and flipped classrooms, is vital. Here quality is in relationships between science lecturers and others. For example, panel members reported:

Some (particularly the few Polynesians) studied best in groups, and we organised special tutorials where they could do this together. (Panel member 4)

As a teacher I interpret teaching as involving any interactions with

students, whether the discussion be academic or pastoral in nature. (Panel member 7)

Construction of Round 2 questionnaire

I used the findings above and the problem resolution lens to reveal emergent ideas about quality teaching in the sciences. These focused on how students learn, characteristics of quality in teaching and preparation of students for working in science. The problem resolution lens enabled a series of preliminary statements for testing in the second round. I selected illustrative statements for each of the main themes identified from the panel members’ responses to Round 1 questions, to form the second round survey, and further explore views on how students learn,

characteristics of quality in teaching and preparation of students for working in science (Appendix B: Round 2 questionnaire).

4.2.2 Round 2: discerning the extent of consensus on characteristics