Investigating Student Perceptions of Instructor Talk: Alignment with Researchers' Categorizations and Analysis of Remembered Language.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Ovid D
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8715771 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Learner-centered classrooms encourage critical thinking and communication among students and between students and their instructor, and engage students as active learners rather than passive participants. However, students, faculty, and experts often have distinct definitions of learner-centeredness, and the paucity of research comparing perspectives of these different groups must be resolved. In the current study, our central research question was how do student, faculty, and expert observer perceptions of learner-centeredness within biology classrooms compare to one another? We sampled 1114 students from fifteen sections of a general biology course for non-majors, and complete responses from 490 students were analyzed. Five valid and reliable tools (two faculty; two student; and one expert observer) evaluated the learner-centeredness of each participating section. Perceptions of learner-centered instructors often aligned with those of expert observers, while student perceptions tended not to align with either group. Interestingly, students perceived learner-centered instructors as less learner-centered if they taught at non-traditional times and/or in large-enrollment sections, despite their focus on student learning. Perceptions of learner-centeredness in the biology classroom are complex and may be best captured with more than one instrument. Our findings encourage instructors to be cognizant that the approaches they employ in the classroom may not be interpreted as learner-centered, in the same manner, by students and external observers, particularly when additional course factors such as enrollment and scheduling may encourage negative perceptions of learner-centered practices.
| S-EPMC6040760 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Instructor Talk-noncontent language used by instructors in classrooms-is a recently defined and promising variable for better understanding classroom dynamics. Having previously characterized the Instructor Talk framework within the context of a single course, we present here our results surrounding the applicability of the Instructor Talk framework to noncontent language used by instructors in novel course contexts. We analyzed Instructor Talk in eight additional biology courses in their entirety and in 61 biology courses using an emergent sampling strategy. We observed widespread use of Instructor Talk with variation in the amount and category type used. The vast majority of Instructor Talk could be characterized using the originally published Instructor Talk framework, suggesting the robustness of this framework. Additionally, a new form of Instructor Talk-Negatively Phrased Instructor Talk, language that may discourage students or distract from the learning process-was detected in these novel course contexts. Finally, the emergent sampling strategy described here may allow investigation of Instructor Talk in even larger numbers of courses across institutions and disciplines. Given its widespread use, potential influence on students in learning environments, and ability to be sampled, Instructor Talk may be a key variable to consider in future research on teaching and learning in higher education.
| S-EPMC6755320 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Humor is a popular tool used by instructors to engage students. However, some instructor jokes may be perceived as less funny and more offensive by particular groups of students. Previous studies have shown that student gender impacts student perception of instructor humor; however, to our knowledge no studies have explored whether there are differences in how other identity groups interpret instructor humor. In this study, we surveyed 1,637 students across 25 different college science courses at a research-intensive institution in the Southwest United States. Students evaluated a set of topics that science instructors might joke about in class as to whether they were funny and offensive. Using binary logistic regression, we analyzed whether students of different identities, including race/ethnicity, political affiliation, LGBTQ+ status, religious affiliation, and native language, differentially perceived joke topics to be funny and offensive if told by an instructor in class. We identified that topics which tended to be perceived by students as funny rather than offensive were generally less likely to be perceived as funny to non-native English language speakers compared with native English speakers. We also found that students were more likely to be offended by jokes about their own identity group. This work identifies potentially humorous topics that instructors should avoid because they could be offensive to groups of students. This study also highlights topics that tend to be perceived as funny to most students, which indicates that instructors who joke about such topics may be universally benefitting college science students.
| S-EPMC7148142 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Abstract Engagement involves students’ investment in learning activities, as well as interrelated affective (emotive responses), behavioral (active responses), and cognitive (mental effort) components. This study assessed undergraduate student and instructor perceptions of the interrelated components of engagement during and after the rapid online transition of teaching in March 2020 due to the COVID‐19 pandemic. Fifteen courses—including laboratory, discussion‐based, large lecture, tutorial, and problem‐based learning—within a multi‐disciplinary faculty at a large research‐intensive Canadian university were surveyed to: (a) assess student and instructor perceptions of students’ levels of engagement during and after the rapid transition to online teaching due to the COVID‐19 pandemic; (b) describe which aspects of engagement were enhanced or diminished due to the rapid online transition; and (c) identify which learning activities students would find most engaging in an online setting so as to assist in developing student‐centered online pedagogical techniques. Student engagement was lower after the rapid online transition. Students who engaged by connecting with peers and instructors through in‐class discussion (affective engagement) had diminished engagement, whereas students who engaged by listening to lectures, reading course materials, and reviewing slides (cognitive engagement) had enhanced engagement. Overall, students found synchronous activities more engaging. Students experienced positive and negative outcomes related to classroom engagement when transitioning rapidly to online learning during a global pandemic.
| S-EPMC7995165 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Previous studies have offered a rationale for engaging students in small-group student talk for the planning of L2 individual writing. To further investigate whether such talk effectively promotes the quality of argument in the context of Chinese tertiary EFL learners' argumentative writing and whether such effects could be retained, the current study adopted a quasi-experimental design with a pretest, a posttest, and a delayed posttest in two intact EFL classes. The performance of the intervention group and the comparison group were scrutinized to examine the effects of the intervention. The analytic scores on six components of the writing task (claim, data, counterargument claim, counterargument data, rebuttal claim, and rebuttal data) and the holistic writing scores cumulated of all these components were measured to see the immediate and sustained effects. Significant changes of the holistic scores in both the immediate posttest and the delayed posttest indicated that such small-group student talk enabled students in the treatment class to achieve better performance in the overall quality of argumentation compared with those in the comparison class. Statistical analyses revealed immediate and sustained effects of small-group student talk on the quality of counterargument claim, counterargument data, and rebuttal claim. Counterargument claim was the only element in which students in both classes made significant improvement, but the treatment class demonstrated a larger effect size. No discernible differences were found either between or within the treatment class and the comparison class with respect to the quality of claim, data, and rebuttal data across tests. Possible explanations concerning the findings and limitations of the study were discussed.
| S-EPMC9240094 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Instructor-generated videos have become a popular way to engage students with material before a class, yet this is a relatively unexplored area of research. There is support for the use of videos in which instructors tutor students, but few studies have been conducted within the context of a classroom. In this study, conducted in a large-enrollment college physiology course, we used a randomized crossover design to compare the impact of two types of instructor-generated videos that students watched as part of their preclass assignments. We compared videos featuring only an instructor (instructor-only videos) with videos featuring an instructor tutoring a student (instructor-tutee videos). We analyzed student survey responses and weekly physiology quiz scores and found that students preferred, enjoyed, and valued the instructor-only videos significantly more than the instructor-tutee videos. In contrast to prior literature, students with a grade point average (GPA) below the median (3.49) performed significantly better on physiology quizzes after watching instructor-only videos compared with instructor-tutee videos. Students with a GPA at or above the median performed equivalently on physiology quizzes after watching instructor-only or instructor-tutee videos. We present this study as an example of bringing cognitive science studies into the context of a real physiology classroom.
| S-EPMC5998313 | biostudies-literature
Project description:For over 50 years instructor humor has been recognized as a way to positively impact student cognitive and affective learning. However, no study has explored humor exclusively in the context of college science courses, which have the reputation of being difficult and boring. The majority of studies that explore humor have assumed that students perceive instructor humor to be funny, yet students likely perceive some instructor humor as unfunny or offensive. Further, evidence suggests that women perceive certain subjects to be more offensive than men, yet we do not know what impact this may have on the experience of women in the classroom. To address these gaps in the literature, we surveyed students across 25 different college science courses about their perceptions of instructor humor in college science classes, which yielded 1637 student responses. Open-coding methods were used to analyze student responses to a question about why students appreciate humor. Multinomial regression was used to identify whether there are gender differences in the extent to which funny, unfunny, and offensive humor influenced student attention to course content, instructor relatability, and student sense of belonging. Logistic regression was used to examine gender differences in what subjects students find funny and offensive when joked about by college science instructors. Nearly 99% of students reported that they appreciate instructor humor and reported that it positively changes the classroom atmosphere, improves student experiences during class, and enhances the student-instructor relationship. We found that funny humor tends to increase student attention to course content, instructor relatability, and student sense of belonging. Conversely, offensive humor tends to decrease instructor relatability and student sense of belonging. Lastly, we identified subjects that males were more likely to find funny and females were more likely to find offensive if a college science instructor were to joke about them.
| S-EPMC6093647 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Studies have demonstrated students' resistance to active learning, despite evidence illustrating that their learning is improved relative to students in lectures. Specifically, while active learning and group work are effective at engaging students in their learning process, studies report that students' perceptions of active learning approaches are not always positive. What remains underexplored is whether students' perceptions of active learning improve with effective instructor facilitation and whether there exists differential perceptions between racially minoritized students and represented students. Here, we estimate students' perceptions of effective instructor facilitation as the mediator in the relationship between active learning and perceptions of learning and perceived utility for class activities (task value). Then, we examine differences by racial identification. We collected classroom observation data to empirically categorize courses as active learning or lecture-based and surveyed 4,257 college students across 25 STEM classrooms at a research-intensive university. We first examined the relationship between active learning on student perceptions and found a negative relationship between active learning and perceptions of learning and task value for both racially minoritized students and represented students. Next, we assessed whether students' perceptions of instructor effectiveness in facilitating group activities mediate these negative relationships. We found that, on average, students of all races were more likely to positively perceive instructor facilitation in active learning classes relative to lectures. In turn, the positive perceptions of instructor facilitation partially suppressed the negative relationship between active learning and perceptions of learning and task value. These results demonstrate that effective instructor facilitation can influence both students' self-assessment of learning and perceived utility of the learning activities, and underscores the importance of developing pedagogical competence among college instructors.
| S-EPMC8699631 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAntimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a global healthcare threat promoted by all use of antibiotics. Hence, reducing overuse of antibiotics is essential. The necessary behaviour change relies on effective public health communication, but previous information campaigns-while showing some successes-have fallen short in generating a lasting increase of public awareness. A potential reason for this is AMR-related terminology, which has been criticised as inconsistent, abstract and difficult to pronounce. We report the first empirical test of word memorability and risk association for the most frequent AMR-related health terms.MethodsAcross two surveys sampling 237 US and 924 UK participants, we test people's memory for and the risk they associate with six AMR-related terms and thirty-four additional health risk terms (e.g., cancer). Participants also rate the terms on different linguistic dimensions including concreteness, familiarity, processing fluency and pronounceability.ResultsOur findings suggest that existing AMR-related health terms-particularly "AMR" and "Antimicrobial resistance"-are unsuitable for public health communication, because they score consistently low on both memorability and risk association. Out of the AMR terms, "Antibiotic resistance" and-to a lesser extent-"Drug-resistant infections" perform best. Regression analyses suggest that linguistic attributes (e.g., familiarity, processing fluency, pronounceability) are predictors of the terms' risk association.ConclusionsOur findings highlight an urgent need to rename AMR with a memorable term that effectively signals the existential threat of AMR and thereby motivates a change in antibiotic use. The success of the revised term is likely to depend, at least partially, on its linguistic attributes.
| S-EPMC10600229 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background:There is increasing evidence that research misbehaviour is common, especially the minor forms. Previous studies on research misbehaviour primarily focused on biomedical and social sciences, and evidence from natural sciences and humanities is scarce. We investigated what academic researchers in Amsterdam perceived to be detrimental research misbehaviours in their respective disciplinary fields. Methods:We used an explanatory sequential mixed methods design. First, survey participants from four disciplinary fields rated perceived frequency and impact of research misbehaviours from a list of 60. We then combined these into a top five ranking of most detrimental research misbehaviours at the aggregate level, stratified by disciplinary field. Second, in focus group interviews, participants from each academic rank and disciplinary field were asked to reflect on the most relevant research misbehaviours for their disciplinary field. We used participative ranking methodology inducing participants to obtain consensus on which research misbehaviours are most detrimental. Results:In total, 1080 researchers completed the survey (response rate: 15%) and 61 participated in the focus groups (3 three to 8 eight researchers per group). Insufficient supervision consistently ranked highest in the survey regardless of disciplinary field and the focus groups confirmed this. Important themes in the focus groups were insufficient supervision, sloppy science, and sloppy peer review. Biomedical researchers and social science researchers were primarily concerned with sloppy science and insufficient supervision. Natural sciences and humanities researchers discussed sloppy reviewing and theft of ideas by reviewers, a form of plagiarism. Focus group participants further provided examples of particular research misbehaviours they were confronted with and how these impacted their work as a researcher. Conclusion:We found insufficient supervision and various forms of sloppy science to score highly on aggregate detrimental impact throughout all disciplinary fields. Researchers from the natural sciences and humanities also perceived nepotism to be of major impact on the aggregate level. The natural sciences regarded fabrication of data of major impact as well. The focus group interviews helped to understand how researchers interpreted 'insufficient supervision'. Besides, the focus group participants added insight into sloppy science in practice. Researchers from the natural sciences and humanities added new research misbehaviours concerning their disciplinary fields to the list, such as the stealing of ideas before publication. This improves our understanding of research misbehaviour beyond the social and biomedical fields.
| S-EPMC6886174 | biostudies-literature