学术的重要性:服务学习课程学生的反馈

Xiangling Liu
{"title":"学术的重要性:服务学习课程学生的反馈","authors":"Xiangling Liu","doi":"10.3998/mjcsloa.3239521.0025.210","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article asserts that academics should constitute the majority of the teaching team of university service-learning curriculum. Using appraisals for service-learning courses for eight recent years at Shantou University, we apply the methods of one-way variance analysis and correlation analysis to analyze the data. The results show that academics teaching courses closely related to their specialties are the most popular with the students, that the self-appraisal scores of students taking the courses taught by those academics are the highest in learning outcomes, and that the correlation between the scores of the students’ appraisals of these teachers and the learning outcomes received by students is the highest. The current study collects and analyzes data on some results of appraisals for service-learning courses during 2011–2018 at Shantou University. Two kinds of appraisal results are included: students’ self-appraisals of their learning outcomes and the students’ appraisals of teachers. In the students’ appraisals of teachers, three kinds of teachers are appraised: academics teaching courses closely related to their specialties, academics teaching courses not related to their specialties, and non-academics (teachers selected from the university’s student counselors, administrative staff, and teaching assistants). The results show that (a) in the students’ appraisals of teachers, academics leading courses closely related to their specialties received the highest appraising scores; (b) in students’ self-appraisals of their learning outcomes, the scores of students taking courses led by academics teaching topics closely related to their specialties are highest, showing significant statistical difference from those of students taking courses led by academics teaching topics not related to their specialties or non-aca-demics. Our analysis also indicates that, for the courses led by academics acting as specialists, the correlation between the score of students’ appraisals of teachers and the score of students’ learning outcomes is the highest. Therefore, we argue that service-learning courses taught by academics acting as specialists are the most success-ful and that they should constitute the majority of service-learning courses offered by universities. results suggest that the type then non-academics, academics acting non-specialists, respectively corresponding the results for course types.","PeriodicalId":93128,"journal":{"name":"Michigan journal of community service learning","volume":"33 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Importance of Academics: Feedback from Students of Service-Learning Curriculum\",\"authors\":\"Xiangling Liu\",\"doi\":\"10.3998/mjcsloa.3239521.0025.210\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article asserts that academics should constitute the majority of the teaching team of university service-learning curriculum. Using appraisals for service-learning courses for eight recent years at Shantou University, we apply the methods of one-way variance analysis and correlation analysis to analyze the data. The results show that academics teaching courses closely related to their specialties are the most popular with the students, that the self-appraisal scores of students taking the courses taught by those academics are the highest in learning outcomes, and that the correlation between the scores of the students’ appraisals of these teachers and the learning outcomes received by students is the highest. The current study collects and analyzes data on some results of appraisals for service-learning courses during 2011–2018 at Shantou University. Two kinds of appraisal results are included: students’ self-appraisals of their learning outcomes and the students’ appraisals of teachers. In the students’ appraisals of teachers, three kinds of teachers are appraised: academics teaching courses closely related to their specialties, academics teaching courses not related to their specialties, and non-academics (teachers selected from the university’s student counselors, administrative staff, and teaching assistants). The results show that (a) in the students’ appraisals of teachers, academics leading courses closely related to their specialties received the highest appraising scores; (b) in students’ self-appraisals of their learning outcomes, the scores of students taking courses led by academics teaching topics closely related to their specialties are highest, showing significant statistical difference from those of students taking courses led by academics teaching topics not related to their specialties or non-aca-demics. Our analysis also indicates that, for the courses led by academics acting as specialists, the correlation between the score of students’ appraisals of teachers and the score of students’ learning outcomes is the highest. Therefore, we argue that service-learning courses taught by academics acting as specialists are the most success-ful and that they should constitute the majority of service-learning courses offered by universities. results suggest that the type then non-academics, academics acting non-specialists, respectively corresponding the results for course types.\",\"PeriodicalId\":93128,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Michigan journal of community service learning\",\"volume\":\"33 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-09-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Michigan journal of community service learning\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3998/mjcsloa.3239521.0025.210\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Michigan journal of community service learning","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3998/mjcsloa.3239521.0025.210","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文认为,大学服务学习课程的教学队伍应由学者组成。本文采用汕头大学近8年服务学习课程的评价结果,运用单向方差分析和相关分析的方法对数据进行分析。结果表明,教授与其专业密切相关的课程的教师最受学生欢迎,学习这些教师的课程的学生自我评价分数最高,学生对这些教师的评价分数与学生获得的学习成果的相关性最高。本研究收集和分析了汕头大学2011-2018年服务学习课程的部分评估结果数据。评价结果包括两种:学生对学习成果的自我评价和学生对教师的评价。在学生对教师的评价中,被评价的教师有三类:教授与其专业密切相关课程的学者、教授与专业无关课程的学者和非学者(从学校的学生辅导员、行政人员和助教中挑选的教师)。结果表明:(a)在学生对教师的评价中,教授与其专业密切相关课程的学者的评价分数最高;(二)在学生对学习成果的自我评价中,修习与其专业密切相关的学者教学主题课程的学生得分最高,与修习与专业无关或非学术的学者教学主题课程的学生得分有显著的统计差异。我们的分析还表明,在学者担任专家的课程中,学生对教师的评价得分与学生的学习成果得分之间的相关性最高。因此,我们认为,学者作为专家教授的服务学习课程是最成功的,他们应该构成大学提供的服务学习课程的大部分。结果表明,类型依次为非学者、学者代理非专家,结果分别为课程类型。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Importance of Academics: Feedback from Students of Service-Learning Curriculum
This article asserts that academics should constitute the majority of the teaching team of university service-learning curriculum. Using appraisals for service-learning courses for eight recent years at Shantou University, we apply the methods of one-way variance analysis and correlation analysis to analyze the data. The results show that academics teaching courses closely related to their specialties are the most popular with the students, that the self-appraisal scores of students taking the courses taught by those academics are the highest in learning outcomes, and that the correlation between the scores of the students’ appraisals of these teachers and the learning outcomes received by students is the highest. The current study collects and analyzes data on some results of appraisals for service-learning courses during 2011–2018 at Shantou University. Two kinds of appraisal results are included: students’ self-appraisals of their learning outcomes and the students’ appraisals of teachers. In the students’ appraisals of teachers, three kinds of teachers are appraised: academics teaching courses closely related to their specialties, academics teaching courses not related to their specialties, and non-academics (teachers selected from the university’s student counselors, administrative staff, and teaching assistants). The results show that (a) in the students’ appraisals of teachers, academics leading courses closely related to their specialties received the highest appraising scores; (b) in students’ self-appraisals of their learning outcomes, the scores of students taking courses led by academics teaching topics closely related to their specialties are highest, showing significant statistical difference from those of students taking courses led by academics teaching topics not related to their specialties or non-aca-demics. Our analysis also indicates that, for the courses led by academics acting as specialists, the correlation between the score of students’ appraisals of teachers and the score of students’ learning outcomes is the highest. Therefore, we argue that service-learning courses taught by academics acting as specialists are the most success-ful and that they should constitute the majority of service-learning courses offered by universities. results suggest that the type then non-academics, academics acting non-specialists, respectively corresponding the results for course types.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
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