نویسندگان
1 عضو هیأت علمی، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی دانشگاه شهید چمران اهواز
2 عضو هیأت علمی، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی دانشگاه شیراز
چکیده
هدف این پژوهش بررسی رابطه شیوه اجرای برنامه درسی (رویکردهای تدریس و ارزیابی اساتید) و رویکردهای ساخت و سازگرایانه در کلاس درس با رویکردهای یادگیری دانشجویان بود. با روش نمونه‌گیری تصادفی خوشه‌ای 670 دانشجوی کارشناسی رشته‌های مختلف دانشگاه شیراز انتخاب شدند و با تکمیل پرسشنامه‌های فراگرد مطالعه (SPQ)، پرسشنامه محیط یادگیری ساخت و سازگرا (CLES)، پرسشنامه تجربه دانشجویان از دانشکده (CSEQ) و پرسشنامه‌های رویکرد تدریس و ارزیابی اساتید اطلاعات مورد نیاز گردآوری شده و مورد تحلیل و بررسی قرار گرفتند. بر اساس یافته‌های پژوهش، اکثر دانشجویان رویکرد یادگیری خود را عملی توصیف می‌کنند ولی اساتید خود را بیشتر دارای رویکرد تدریس مدار و رویکرد ارزیابی بازتولید دانش می‌دانند. ساخت و ساز گرایی در کلاس درس با رویکرد تدریس یادگیری مدار و اتخاذ رویکردهای یادگیری عمقی و حصولی از سوی دانشجو همبستگی مثبت معنی‌دار دارد. از بین رویکردهای تدریس، تنها رویکرد تدریس تلفیقی است که همزمان با رویکردهای یادگیری عمقی و دستاوردی و همچنین با ساخت و سازگرایی در کلاس درس همبستگی مثبت و معنادار دارد. بین رویکرد تدریس یادگیری مدار و رویکرد ارزیابی سازماندهی و کاربرد دانش رابطه مثبت و معنی‌دار وجود دارد. اما رویکرد ارزیابی بازتولید دانش با رویکرد تدریس یادگیری مدار همبستگی منفی معنی‌دار دارد. تأکید دانشکده بر هر دو دسته کیفیات شناختی و کیفیات حرفه‌ای و کاربردی با رویکرد ارزیابی سازماندهی و کاربرد دانش دارای رابطه مثبت و معنی‌دار است. امابین هیچکدام از رویکردهای یادگیری با کیفیات مورد تأکید دانشکده رابطه معنی‌دار یافت نشد. از مجموع یافته‌ها می‌توان اهمیت آموزش تعاملی و مشارکت جویانه (دانشجومدار) از نظر دانشجویان را استنباط نمود و بر این نکته تأکید کرد که به منظور تحقق رسالت آموزشی و پژوهشی دانشگاه (خلق و نشر دانش) باید نگرش اساتید به تدریس و ارزیابی در آموزش عالی بهبود یابد. توجه بیشتر اساتید به فعالیتهای مشارکت جویانه و بحث و تبادل نظر در کلاس درس و کاربردی کردن آموخته‌های دانشجویان، تمایل دانشجویان را به پذیرش رویکرد عمقی یادگیری بیشتر می‌کند.
کلیدواژه‌ها
عنوان مقاله [English]
The Simple and Multiple Relationships of Constructivism in Classroom and Curriculum Implementation (Teaching and Assessment Approaches) with Students’ Learning Approaches at Shiraz University
نویسندگان [English]
- A. Parsa 1
- P. Saketti 2
1 Faculty member, Faculty of Education, Science and Psychology, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz
2 Faculty member, Faculty of Education, Science and Psychology, Shiraz University
چکیده [English]
The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship of constructivism in classroom and curriculum implementation (teaching and assessment approaches) in higher education with students’ learning approaches. 670 ranomly selected students at Shiraz University completed five Questionnaires (SPQ, CSEQ, CLES, and teaching and assessment approaches questionnaires). By analyzing the data the following results were obtained. Many students believed that they use a deep approach to learning, while their teachers used teaching-oriented approach and reproductive approach of assessment. There was a significant correlation between learning-oriented approach of teaching and constructivism in classroom. Also learning-oriented approach of teaching had positive and significant correlation with organization and application approaches of assessment. Teaching-oriented approach had positive and significant relationship with surface and deep approaches of learning, but learning-oriented approach of teaching only had significant relationship with achievement approach of learning. Emphasis on academic and cognitive qualities by colleges had positive and significant relationship with organization and application approaches of assessment. Emphasis on professional and actual qualities by colleges had negative but significant relationship with reproductive approach of assessment, and positive and significant relationship with organization and application approaches of assessment. The results of research indicated that curriculum implementation (teaching and assessment approaches) predicts student’s learning approaches. Also, constructivism in classroom directly predicts deep learning approach. We did not find any significant relationship between learning approaches and college emphasis on academic, cognitive and professional qualities. Moreover the results indicated that constructivism in classroom had positive and significant relationship with deep and achievement learning approaches.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
- curriculum implementation
- teaching approach
- assessment approach
- learning approach (surface
- deep
- achievement)
- constructivism
- college quality emphasis
Biggs, J.B. (1987). Process and outcomes in essay writing. Research and Development in Higher Education, Vol. 9.
Biggs, J.B. (1989). Approaches to the enhancement of tertiary teaching. Higher Educaiwn Research and Development, Vol. 8, No 1.
Biggs, J. (2001). The reflective institution: Assuring and enhancing the quality of teaching and learning. Higher Education, Vol. 41.
Bontempo, J., & Morgan, P. (2003). Learning, teaching and assessment. Overview of key literature on learning, teaching and assessment. http:llwww.training. Wa. gov.au/resources/does/learing %20 teaching %20 & %20 Assessment %20 (WADT). pdf.
Bontempo, J., & Morgan, P. (2003). TAFE student survey validation measuring student perceptions of teaching, assessment and learning. http:/Iwww.Training. wa. gov. au/resources/doesI200l %20 survey %20 validation %20 (WADT) pdf.
Boulton, L. & Gillian, M. (1995). The SOLO taxonomy as a means of shaping and assessing learning in higher education. Higher Education Research and Development. Vol. 14 No 2, pp 143-154.
Brooker, R. Smith, D. (1996). Assessing tertiary students in an education faculty. Rhetoric and reality. Higher Education Research and Development. Vol. 15, No, 2 pp 163-175.
Candy, P.C. (1993). Learning theories in higher education: Reflections on the keynote day, HERDSA 1992. Higher Education Research and Development. Vol. 12 No, 1 pp 99-106.
Choy, S.C., Delahaye, B.L. (2002). Learing approaches, study orientation and readiness for self- directed learning of youth in TAEE. http:/! www.ncver. edu. au/research/papers/download/choydel.rtf.
Drew, P.Y., Watkins, D. (1998). Affective variables, learning approaches and academic achievement: A casual modelling investigation with Hong Kong tertiary students. BJ.eu.psy. Vol. 68, pp 173-188.
Entwistle, N.J. (1991). Approaches to learning and perception of the learning environment. Higher Education, Vol. 22, pp 201-204.
Eniwistle, N.J., Entwistle, A. (1991). Contrasting forms of understanding for degree examinations: The student experience and its implications. Higher Education, Vol. 22, pp 205-207.
Entwistle, N.J., Tait, H. (1990). Approaches to learning, evaluation of teaching and preferences for contrasting academic environment. Higher Education, Vol. 19, pp 169-194.
Geiger, M.A., Pinto, J.K. (1991). Changes in learning style performance during a three- year longitudinal study. Psychological Reports, Vol. 69, pp
755 -762.
Gow, L., Kember, D. (1993). Conception of teaching and their relationship to student learning. B.J, edu. Psy. Vol. 63, pp 20-33.
Guskin, A.E. (1996). Restructuring our universities, focusing on student learning. http://www.ala.orglacrl/invited/guskin.html.
Kember, D., Leung, D.Y.P. (1998). The dimensionality of approaches to learning: An investigation with confirmatory factor analysis on the structure of the SPQ and LPQ, BJ. edu.psy. Vol. 68, pp 395-407.
Kember, D., McKay, J. (1996). Action research into the uaIity of student learning. Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 97 No 5, pp 528-554.
Lebow, 1). (1994). Constructivist values of instructional system design: Five principles toward a new mindset. Educational Technology Research & Development (ETR & I)). Vol. 41, No. 3. pp 4-16.
McCormick, Ft & Murphy, P. Curriculum: A focus on learning. File:/IA:\Curriculum and learning, htm
McKey, J. Kember, D. (1997). Spoonfeeding leads to regurgitation: A better diet can result in more digestible learning outcomes: Higher Education Research and Development, Vol. 16, No 1, pp 55-67.
Meld, A., Hunter, S. (1998). Environments, experience, and outcomes: Using the College Student Experience Questionnaire for assessment and accreditation. http://www.evergreen. edu/institutional research/pdf/CSEQ presentation 98. pdf.
Muray-Harvey, R. (1994). learning styles and approaches to learning:
Distinguishing between concepts and instruments. BJ. edu.psy. Vol. 64, pp
373-388.
Norton, Linda S., Crowley, Catherine M. (1995). Can students be helped to learn how to learn: An evaluation of an approach to learning programme for first year degree student. Higher Education. Vol. 29
Pollio, H.R., Beck, H.P. (2000). When the tail wags the dog: Perceptions of learning and grade orientation in, and by, contemporary college students and faculty. The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 71, No 1, pp 84-108.
Prosser, M. (1993). Phenomenography and the principles and practices of learning. Higher Education Research and Devolopment, Vol. 12, No 1, pp
21-31.
Prosser, M. & Millar, R. (1989). The how and what of learning physics. European Journal of the Psychology of Education, Vol. 4.
Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to Teach in Higher Education. London:
Routledge.
Ramsden, P. & Entwistle, N.J. (1981). Effects of academic department on students approaches to studying. B.)’. edu. Pry. Vol. 51.
Sadler-Smith, E. (1996). Approaches to studying: Age, gender, and academic performance. Educational Studies, Vol. 22, No 3.
Samuelowicz, K. & Bain, J.D. (1992). Conceptions of teaching held academic teachers. Higher Eucation, Vol. 24, pp 93-111.
Samuelowicz, K & Bain, J.D. (2001). Revisiting academic beliefs about teaching and learning. Higher Education, Vol. 41, pp 299-323.
Samuelowicz, K. & Bain, J.D. (2002). Identifying academic orientations to assessment practice. Higher Education, Vol. 43, pp 173-201.
Scouller, K (1998). The influence of assessment method on students learning approches: Multiple choice question examination versus assignment essay. Higher Education, Vol. 35, pp 453-472.
Shale, 5. (2002). Higher education and higher learning. File:///A: hAUL %20 learning %20 and %20 teachingi-files /IAUL+1+2+1+main htm
Shale, S. & Trigwell, K. (2002). Student approaches to learning. http:/!www.learning. ox.ac.!iaul/IAUL+ 1+2+ 2+main.asp.
Sheppard, C. & Gilibert, J. (1991). Course design, teaching method and student epistemology. Higher Education, Vol. 22, pp 229-249.
Tang, T. & Eilliams, .1. (2001). Misalignment of learning context: An explanation of the Chinese learner paradox. Http:!!www.bus.qut.edu.!au! schools/economics/disc-papers-pre200l/tang- williams-79.pdf.
Taylor, R. & Hyde, M. (2002). Learning context and students’ perceptions of context influence student learning approaches and outcomes in Animal Science 2. ACE group, Teaching and Educational! Development Institute. The university of Queensland.
Trigwell, K & Prosser, M. (1996). Congruence between intention and strategy in university science teachers approaches to teaching. Higher Education, VoL 32, pp 77-87.
Trigwell, K & Prosser, M. (1997). Towards an understanding of individual acts of teaching and learning. Higher Education Research and Development, Vol. 16, No 2, pp 241-252.
Van Rossum, B.J. & Schenk, S.M. (1984). The relationship between learning conception, study strategy and learning outcomes. BJ. edu.Psy. Vol. 54.
Vermetten, Y.3., Vermunt, J.D. & Lodwijks, H.G. (1999). A longitudinal perspective on learning strategies in higher education: Different view points towards development. BJ. edu.Psy. Vol. 69, pp 221-242.
Watkins, D. & Hattie, J. (1990). Individual and contextual difference in the approaches to learning of Australian secondary school students. Educational Psychology, Vol. 10.
Waugh, R.F. (1998). The Course Experience Questionnaire: A Rash measurement model analysis. Higher Education Research and Development, Vol. 17, No 1, pp 45-63.
Young, S. & Shaw, D.G. (1999). Profiles of effective college and university teachers. Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 20, No 6, pp 670-686.
Zidowecki, H. (1995). Curriculum: The course of life. File://A:\Curriclum %20The%20Course%ZOof%2OLife.htm
)