Instructor recommendations for student learning strategies and metacognition: An analysis of undergraduate biology syllabi

IF 3.6 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Sharday N. Ewell, Alayna Harvey, Amanda Clark, Megan E. Maloney, Laurie S. Stevison, Cissy J. Ballen
{"title":"Instructor recommendations for student learning strategies and metacognition: An analysis of undergraduate biology syllabi","authors":"Sharday N. Ewell,&nbsp;Alayna Harvey,&nbsp;Amanda Clark,&nbsp;Megan E. Maloney,&nbsp;Laurie S. Stevison,&nbsp;Cissy J. Ballen","doi":"10.1002/tea.21996","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>An inequitable distribution of resources and opportunities for marginalized students (i.e., opportunity gaps) leads to challenges in identifying effective study behaviors, metacognition, and academic help-seeking in higher education. While students benefit when these skills are taught explicitly through co-curricular workshops and courses, these interventions often require significant time investment from faculty and students, underscoring a need for alternative interventions that provide students with access to resources related to these skills. Course syllabi are one potential resource that can address these needs, and we asked to what extent biology syllabi are used for this purpose. We collected a national sample of introductory biology syllabi and used content analysis to determine if syllabi are learner-centered and whether they incorporate information on study behaviors, metacognition, and academic help-seeking. We found that most syllabi are not learner-centered, encourage ineffective study behaviors, did not include metacognition recommendations, and include incomplete academic help-seeking recommendations. We make several recommendations on how to incorporate complete, accurate information regarding study behaviors, metacognition, and academic help-seeking.</p>","PeriodicalId":48369,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Research in Science Teaching","volume":"62 4","pages":"1132-1158"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/tea.21996","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Research in Science Teaching","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tea.21996","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

An inequitable distribution of resources and opportunities for marginalized students (i.e., opportunity gaps) leads to challenges in identifying effective study behaviors, metacognition, and academic help-seeking in higher education. While students benefit when these skills are taught explicitly through co-curricular workshops and courses, these interventions often require significant time investment from faculty and students, underscoring a need for alternative interventions that provide students with access to resources related to these skills. Course syllabi are one potential resource that can address these needs, and we asked to what extent biology syllabi are used for this purpose. We collected a national sample of introductory biology syllabi and used content analysis to determine if syllabi are learner-centered and whether they incorporate information on study behaviors, metacognition, and academic help-seeking. We found that most syllabi are not learner-centered, encourage ineffective study behaviors, did not include metacognition recommendations, and include incomplete academic help-seeking recommendations. We make several recommendations on how to incorporate complete, accurate information regarding study behaviors, metacognition, and academic help-seeking.

Abstract Image

教师对学生学习策略与元认知的建议:对本科生物教学大纲的分析
在高等教育中,边缘化学生的资源和机会分配不公平(即机会差距)导致在识别有效的学习行为、元认知和学术求助方面面临挑战。虽然通过课外研讨会和课程明确教授这些技能会使学生受益,但这些干预措施往往需要教师和学生投入大量时间,这凸显了为学生提供与这些技能相关资源的替代干预措施的必要性。课程大纲是一种潜在的资源,可以满足这些需求,我们询问生物大纲在多大程度上用于这一目的。我们收集了一份全国范围内的生物导论教学大纲样本,并使用内容分析来确定教学大纲是否以学习者为中心,以及它们是否包含了学习行为、元认知和学术求助方面的信息。我们发现大多数教学大纲不是以学习者为中心的,鼓励无效的学习行为,没有包括元认知建议,包括不完整的学术求助建议。我们就如何整合完整、准确的学习行为、元认知和学术求助信息提出了几点建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
Journal of Research in Science Teaching EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
8.80
自引率
19.60%
发文量
96
期刊介绍: Journal of Research in Science Teaching, the official journal of NARST: A Worldwide Organization for Improving Science Teaching and Learning Through Research, publishes reports for science education researchers and practitioners on issues of science teaching and learning and science education policy. Scholarly manuscripts within the domain of the Journal of Research in Science Teaching include, but are not limited to, investigations employing qualitative, ethnographic, historical, survey, philosophical, case study research, quantitative, experimental, quasi-experimental, data mining, and data analytics approaches; position papers; policy perspectives; critical reviews of the literature; and comments and criticism.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信