At the current stage this project is about finding statistical generalizations in qualitative, danish educational research. That is to check my assumption that there is a tendency to make statistical generalizations on the basis of observations which cannot support such generalizations.
I will be posting excerpts from all those studies which to me seem problematic. This post is part of that and this is a link to the first post in the line.
Grosskinsky, D. K., Jørgensen, K., & Hammer úr Skúoy, K. (2019)
Reference:
"Grosskinsky, D. K., Jørgensen, K., & Hammer úr Skúoy, K. (2019). A flowchart as a tool to support student learning in a laboratory exercise. Dansk Universitetspædagogisk Tidsskrift, 14(26), 23–35. https://doi.org/10.7146/dut.v14i26.104402 "
Abstract:
Practical laboratory exercises are an essential part of university education in natural sciences. The multitude of positive aspects of this active and lively teaching approach is, however, accompanied by some challenges, which have to be observed by the teacher(s) of practical exercises. In this project, a strategy was designed, employed and evaluated to support teaching and student learning in laboratory exercises spread over several days by implementing a flowchart as a central component. Initial co-construction of the flowchart with the students gives ownership of the exercise to the students and forms a common basis for communication and interaction as well as a point of reference throughout the exercise. This approach supported student learning as evidenced by increased understanding of the content and the ability to connect individual parts of the exercise. In addition, it allows the teacher to easily track student progress.
Testable hypothesis?:
No: "The implementation of a flowchart for a practical laboratory exercise in plant science at BSc level is presented here. " s24
Method/materials:
"The presented teaching approach was implemented in the laboratory exercise “Tracking Gene Expression,” which was part of the course Plant Genomics in 2017. This course is embedded in the BSc programs in Biology-B iotechnology and Natural Resources at the Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences at the University of Copenhagen. Eleven students in their 2nd or 3rd year of BSc studies participated." s24
"In addition to student feedback, the effect of implementing a co-constructed flowchart as a central element of the exercise was evaluated by the teacher based on experiences from previous teaching of similar exercises. Important aspects of this evaluation comprise the estimation of student understanding of the content based on the final discussion of obtained results and case studies, the quality of final reports submitted by the students, and the teacher’s role and perspective on the exercise compared to similar exercises not using this tool." s29
Statistical generalizations:
1) "However, it is important that a teacher defines the purpose of the flowchart for a specific teaching unit and subsequently, how an appropriate flowchart has to look and how it has to be implemented according to a suitable plan, taking the teaching situation into consideration. This means that a specific flowchart could simply be provided as a guide or could be created either through co-construction (like here) or by the students on their own, followed by feedback on their drafts. Certainly, the latter options have the advantage that students have to deal with the content of teaching and develop a feeling of ownership by contributing to the flowchart construction. With these considerations, flowcharts seem to be good tools for guiding students through exercises and content with a complex structure." s34
Comments:
I have flagged this study for generalizations of type 5 (see typology).
Ingen kommentarer:
Send en kommentar