Dataset Information

Barriers to teaching evolution in higher education.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Although progress has been made in evolution education, many educators face significant barriers in their efforts to teach evolution specifically, and science in general. The purpose of this study was to identify faculty-perceived barriers to teaching evolution, specifically in religiously affiliated institutions or institutions with a highly religious student body, as well as resources faculty feel would help promote discourse around faith, evolution and science. To do this, we held a workshop with teams consisting of a science professor, a theologian and a pastor (of the predominant on-campus faith tradition) from 17 different institutions of higher education with highly religious student bodies for the purpose of helping them to create a curriculum to address perceived conflicts between science and faith. During the workshop, participants created posters identifying barriers they face and resources they perceive as helpful. These posters were analyzed for prevalent themes and framed within an ecological model of behavior.

Results

These teams identified prevalent barriers at each level of the ecological model. Intrapersonal factors included a fear of rocking the boat and a fear of student conflict. Interpersonal factors included perceived student lack of knowledge, student ideology, and student apathy. Institutional factors included work politics, a lack of relevant discourse surrounding the conflict, and mixed messaging to students. Community factors included social norms associated with various student demographics. And public policy factors included local and state government attempts to limit the teaching of evolution. Additionally, participants identified resources that they felt would facilitate overcoming conflict including colleagues as change agents, various assets, and tools to negate conflict.

Conclusions

We determined that many of the concerns are addressable, and many resources are attainable. We urge the community to work toward these solutions. Additionally, we compare our findings to what the literature has shown and discuss the implications of faculty perceptions as compared to the published literature.

Supplementary information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12052-021-00151-1.

SUBMITTER: Tolman ER

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8360818 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMedical education is characterized by numerous features that are different from other higher education programmes, and evaluations of teaching quality are an integral part of medical education. Although scholars have made extensive efforts to enhance the quality of teaching, various issues unrelated to teaching that interfere with the accuracy of evaluation results remain. The purpose of this study is to identify the barriers that prevent objective and reliable results from being obtained during the evaluation process.MethodsThis study used mixed methods (3 data sources) to collect opinions from different stakeholders. Based on purposive sampling, 16 experts familiar with teaching management and 12 s- and third-year students were invited to participate in interviews and discussions, respectively. Additionally, based on systematic random sampling, 74 teachers were invited to complete a questionnaire survey. All qualitative data were imported into NVivo software and analysed using thematic analysis in chronological order and based on grounded theory. Statistical analyses of the questionnaire results were conducted using SPSS software.ResultsSixty-nine valid questionnaires (93.24%) were recovered. A total of 29 open codes were extracted, and 14 axial codes were summarized and divided into four selective codes: evaluation preparation, the index system, the operation process, and the consequences of evaluation. The main barriers to obtaining reliable evaluation results included inadequate attention, unreasonable weighting, poor teaching facilities, an index without pertinence and appropriate descriptions, bad time-points, incomplete information on the system, lagged feedback, and disappointing result application. Almost all participants suggested lowering the weight of students as subjects, with a weight of 50-60% being appropriate. Students showed dissatisfaction with evaluation software, and the participants disagreed over the definition of good teaching and the management of student attendance.ConclusionsThis study reveals the difficulties and problems in current evaluations of teaching in medical education. Collecting data from multiple stakeholders helps in better understanding the evaluation process. Educators need to be aware of various issues that may affect the final results when designing the evaluation system and interpreting the results. More research on solutions to these problems and the development of a reasonable evaluation system is warranted.

Project description:In this paper, the effectiveness of training faculty in laboratory teaching (the teaching of science in a laboratory setting using experiments and similar exercises) through the use of Information and Communications Technology (ICT)-virtual technologies for faculties in institutions of higher education in the Indian state of Kerala-was evaluated and measured. The efficacy of employing ICT to train teachers in higher education is important, and we have identified 5I factors (innovative, interactive, involvement, informative, and influential) to help ascertain the effectiveness of such technology training during pandemic teaching. The laboratory learning using VL can describe the student's engagement in the online learning process. This work more specifically identifies how ICT helps in laboratory teaching and identifies the critical pedagogical aspects of the ICT. If the technology has these 5I factors, then it will be an effective teaching method for laboratory learning. Here, we used the ICT-virtual labs in science as the technology to evaluate these five factors. The research first began by conducting an ethnicity profile of science teachers in the middle and high/secondary stages of school consisting of classes VII, IX, and X (i.e., students of ages 11 to 15). To evaluate the use of VL in the 5I framework, the faculties in science were divided into experimental and control groups (n = 101). The experimental group practiced in a virtual lab in the first stage, but the control group did not. Test I was then performed on both groups. In the second stage, both groups practiced with real lab equipment, and test II was conducted on both groups. The tests and other data from the two groups were statistically analyzed using independent t tests. There were notable differences between the experimental and control groups: in terms of time for understanding the concepts behind the experiment, time for doing the experiment, and accuracy in results, with the experimental group performing significantly better. On the other hand, there was no significant difference between the two groups in task completion accuracy. Overall, there was a beneficial transfer of training from the virtual lab exercise to the real lab, with the experimental group's average score being higher.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10956-022-09995-8.

Project description:IntroductionIn health education, group work is essential to prepare students for working in health care and medical teams. Following the widespread adoption of online teaching, group work increasingly takes place in online environments. Although successful group work can provide good learning outcomes, it is unclear what facilitates or hinders online group work in health science education, and to what extent this topic has been addressed. Thus, this scoping review aimed to identify the facilitators and barriers to online group work in higher health education, provide an overview of the scientific literature related to the topic, and identify knowledge gaps in the research.MethodsThis scoping review was guided by the methodological framework described by Arksey and O'Malley, and reporting is in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Extension for Scoping Review (PRISMA-ScR). Eight online databases were searched for scientific articles published between 2012 and 2022. At least two researchers independently screened records and full-text articles and charted data including article characteristics and key information related to the research question. Findings were categorized and summarized based on the Community of Inquiry Framework.ResultsAfter screening 3671 records and 466 full-text articles, 39 articles met the inclusion criteria. The review revealed smaller group size, consistency in group composition and joint responsibility to be facilitators. Challenges with group communication, scheduling synchronous meetings and technical issues were identified as barriers. Our findings supported the importance of all three elements of the Community of Inquiry Framework: social, cognitive, and teaching presence.ConclusionThis review provides an overview of facilitators and barriers to online group work in health science education. However, there is a need for further investigation of these factors and studies addressing this topic from the teachers' perspective.