准实验与交叉设计方法培养大学生研究能力

A. Uaciquete, M. Valcke
{"title":"准实验与交叉设计方法培养大学生研究能力","authors":"A. Uaciquete, M. Valcke","doi":"10.1163/2031356x-35010003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This study reports on the impact of two alternative interventions to increase undergraduate students’ research competence. In one condition students started early in the research-based learning (rbl) approach and later followed a research-led learning (rll) approach. In the second condition students started early in the rll approach and followed an rbl approach later. Research activities in both conditions were linked to a regular university course in social science. Following a 12-week crossover design, the differential impact was studied by looking at actual changes in students’ (1) research competence, (2) research self-efficacy and (3) motivation to do research – before, during and after the intervention. Focus group discussions (fgd s) helped to collect qualitative data at the end of the intervention. Analysis of the results pointed to a significantly higher impact on students’ research competence of studying first in the rbl context. Students starting in the rll condition and experiencing rbl only after the crossover moment also improved, but did not catch up. The qualitative data further underline the stronger positive impact of rbl on students’ research competence.","PeriodicalId":32512,"journal":{"name":"Afrika Focus","volume":"34 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Quasi-Experimental and Crossover Design Methodology to Develop Undergraduate Research Competence\",\"authors\":\"A. Uaciquete, M. Valcke\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/2031356x-35010003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n This study reports on the impact of two alternative interventions to increase undergraduate students’ research competence. In one condition students started early in the research-based learning (rbl) approach and later followed a research-led learning (rll) approach. In the second condition students started early in the rll approach and followed an rbl approach later. Research activities in both conditions were linked to a regular university course in social science. Following a 12-week crossover design, the differential impact was studied by looking at actual changes in students’ (1) research competence, (2) research self-efficacy and (3) motivation to do research – before, during and after the intervention. Focus group discussions (fgd s) helped to collect qualitative data at the end of the intervention. Analysis of the results pointed to a significantly higher impact on students’ research competence of studying first in the rbl context. Students starting in the rll condition and experiencing rbl only after the crossover moment also improved, but did not catch up. The qualitative data further underline the stronger positive impact of rbl on students’ research competence.\",\"PeriodicalId\":32512,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Afrika Focus\",\"volume\":\"34 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Afrika Focus\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/2031356x-35010003\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Afrika Focus","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/2031356x-35010003","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

本研究报告了两种替代干预措施对提高大学生研究能力的影响。在一种情况下,学生早期开始采用基于研究的学习(rbl)方法,后来采用以研究为主导的学习(rll)方法。在第二种情况下,学生们较早开始采用rll方法,较晚采用rbl方法。这两种情况下的研究活动都与大学社会科学的正规课程有关。在为期12周的交叉设计之后,通过观察学生在干预前、干预期间和干预后(1)研究能力、(2)研究自我效能和(3)研究动机的实际变化,研究了差异影响。焦点小组讨论(fgd)有助于在干预结束时收集定性数据。分析结果显示,在rbl情境下先学习对学生研究能力的影响显著更高。在rll条件下开始和在交叉时刻后才经历rbl的学生也有所提高,但没有赶上。质性数据进一步强调rbl对学生研究能力有更强的正向影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Quasi-Experimental and Crossover Design Methodology to Develop Undergraduate Research Competence
This study reports on the impact of two alternative interventions to increase undergraduate students’ research competence. In one condition students started early in the research-based learning (rbl) approach and later followed a research-led learning (rll) approach. In the second condition students started early in the rll approach and followed an rbl approach later. Research activities in both conditions were linked to a regular university course in social science. Following a 12-week crossover design, the differential impact was studied by looking at actual changes in students’ (1) research competence, (2) research self-efficacy and (3) motivation to do research – before, during and after the intervention. Focus group discussions (fgd s) helped to collect qualitative data at the end of the intervention. Analysis of the results pointed to a significantly higher impact on students’ research competence of studying first in the rbl context. Students starting in the rll condition and experiencing rbl only after the crossover moment also improved, but did not catch up. The qualitative data further underline the stronger positive impact of rbl on students’ research competence.
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
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
20 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