arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
arXiv 1701.07754physics.ed-ph
收藏

教师对学生反思的个性化回应:两位教师的观点和实践分析

Personalized instructor responses to guided student reflections: Analysis of two instructors' perspectives and practices

Daniel L. Reinholz, Dimitri R. Dounas-Frazer

摘要:

在物理系培养支持性文化的一种方法是教师对学生的学业困难给予个人关注。为此,我们开发了引导式反思表(GRF),这是一种在线工具,可以促进学生的反思和个性化的教师回应。在目前的工作中,我们报告的经验和做法的两名教师谁使用的GRF在介绍物理实验室课程。我们的分析借鉴了两个数据来源:(i)学期后采访的教师和(ii)教师的书面答复,134名学生的反思。访谈的重点是教师对GRF活动的目标和框架的看法,以及好的或坏的反馈的特点。他们的GRF反应进行了分析,存在多达六种类型的声明:鼓励的声明,规范化的声明,同情的声明,策略建议,资源建议,并反馈给学生的结构,他们的反思。我们发现,这两位教师都使用了所有六种反应类型,与他们对良好反馈的看法一致。这一探索性的定性研究表明,GRF可以作为一种机制,教师个人关注他们的学生。此外,它打开了大门,未来的工作的影响,GRF的师生互动。

英文摘要:

One way to foster a supportive culture in physics departments is for instructors to provide students with personal attention regarding their academic difficulties. To this end, we have developed the Guided Reflection Form (GRF), an online tool that facilitates student reflections and personalized instructor responses. In the present work, we report on the experiences and practices of two instructors who used the GRF in an introductory physics lab course. Our analysis draws on two sources of data: (i) post-semester interviews with both instructors and (ii) the instructors' written responses to 134 student reflections. Interviews focused on the instructors' perceptions about the goals and framing of the GRF activity, and characteristics of good or bad feedback. Their GRF responses were analyzed for the presence of up to six types of statement: encouraging statements, normalizing statements, empathizing statements, strategy suggestions, resource suggestions, and feedback to the student on the structure of their reflection. We find that both instructors used all six response types, in alignment with their perceptions of what counts as good feedback. This exploratory qualitative investigation demonstrates that the GRF can serve as a mechanism for instructors to pay personal attention to their students. In addition, it opens the door to future work about the impact of the GRF on student-teacher interactions.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑