| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
ILLUMINATIONS
Department of Physical Therapy
College of Health Sciences
Medical University of Ohio
3015 Arlington Ave.
Toledo, OH 43614
E-mail: mmasterson@meduohio.edu
Kinesiology Division
Bowling Green State University
Bowling Green, OH 43403
doi:10.1152/advan.00037.2005
The phrase "scholarship of teaching" was introduced in 1990 by Ernest Boyer in his report, Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate (1). He suggested that teaching should be more than just an expectation for faculty; it should be held to similar standards as other scholarly work and should be recognized and considered as such in promotion and tenure decisions. He called for rigorous assessment and documentation of the scholarship of teaching using established criteria (1, 4, 5). However, defining the phrase scholarship of teaching and determining the criteria by which it should be assessed have been elusive. It has been suggested that the scholarship of teaching should focus on the quality of student learning that results from teaching practices. Furthermore, the scholarship of teaching should focus on providing the evidence for and documentation of the teaching practices that most efficiently and effectively facilitate student learning (4).
Although many educators have begun to embrace the concept of scholarship of teaching, there is still a paucity of scientific documentation supporting specific teaching strategies. Thus educators have been challenged to conduct and document research in the profession of education for two reasons: 1) to contribute to the scientific knowledge base of the profession and 2) to bolster the future of the profession in the academic community through the scholarly pursuit of educational research (3). It is for these reasons that we conducted a study to determine the effectiveness of a previously published educational tool, "Understanding the Cardiovascular Adjustments to Upright Posture" (6).
A class of 12 graduate students and a class of 58 undergraduate students majoring in exercise science in the Department of Kinesiology were given the educational tool as part of their regular course assignments. They received the educational tool 1 wk before a regularly scheduled laboratory session and were instructed to complete the tool independently before the laboratory session.
During the laboratory session, students met in groups of four or five students to further discuss, clarify, and review the questions, problems, and case scenarios from the educational tool. Two instructors were present to assist students as needed. After the small group discussions, the instructors facilitated further discussion with the entire group and provided students with copies of the educational tool's answer key for future reference.
At the end of the laboratory session, students were given a survey, adapted from a survey used by Chandler and DiCarlo (2), accompanied by a cover letter asking them to voluntarily and anonymously complete the survey to determine the effectiveness of the educational tool and of the discussion groups. The survey protocol was approved by the University's Institutional Review Board, and anonymous completion of the survey served as informed consent. The survey contained statements that related to four areas: goals and objectives, content, components and organization, and laboratory group discussions. Students were asked to rate each statement by circling either 1 (strongly disagree), 2 (disagree), 3 (neutral), 4 (agree), or 5 (strongly agree). Results from the survey were then analyzed using descriptive statistics (means ± SD).
All of the graduate and undergraduate students volunteered to complete the survey for a 100% response rate. The survey statements and student responses are presented in Table 1. Overall, responses were favorable for both the educational tool and the laboratory group discussion. The most favorable responses of the undergraduate students were that "the tool contains challenging and motivating material for the subject matter" (4.12 ± 0.73) and "group discussion allowed me to go beyond my previous level of knowledge" (4.24 ± 0.63).
|
Graduate student responses were overall more favorable than those of the undergraduate students. This may be due to the characteristics of the students, their educational background, and their course of study. The undergraduate class included students in a variety of exercise- and health-related fields (exercise physiology, prephysical therapy, physical education, and athletic training) with limited educational background in cardiovascular physiology. They were also younger, more traditional students. Graduate students were older, had previous coursework in exercise physiology, and had a more narrowly focused course of study in exercise science.
The nature of graduate coursework is also more congruent with active and independent learning. Class sizes are typically smaller and more conducive to discussion, courses often have a hands-on laboratory component, and the content areas of the courses are related and more focused. The courses taken by undergraduate students are typically larger in size, and the traditional lecture format predominates. Thus undergraduate students may have had much less experience with active learning strategies and may be unfamiliar or uncomfortable with the type of learning required of the educational tool.
Graduate students recommended that both the educational tool (4.42 ± 0.67) and group discussion (4.33 ± 0.78) format be used for other content areas. Undergraduate students were neutral in regard to recommending the educational tool format for other areas (3.33 ± 0.98) but would recommend the group discussion format (3.90 ± 0.91). Given these results, as well as the overall results regarding higher level learning, this educational tool, accompanied by group discussion, is an effective teaching strategy for both undergraduate and graduate students in the field of health science. It promotes active, independent, and collaborative learning that enhances a student's ability to apply, integrate, and synthesize the course material. It also provided students with opportunities to problem solve and think critically, which are skills that are applicable to all levels of learning in the classroom and in health science professions.
 |
REFERENCES |
|---|
 TOP REFERENCES |
|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| Visit Other APS Journals Online |
