Search results
1 – 8 of 8Joseph Press, Paola Bellis, Tommaso Buganza, Silvia Magnanini, Abraham B. (Rami) Shani, Daniel Trabucchi, Roberto Verganti and Federico P. Zasa
Arthur Seakhoa-King, Marcjanna M Augustyn and Peter Mason
Andrew Cram, Stephanie Wilson, Matthew Taylor and Craig Mellare
This paper aims to identify and evaluate resolutions to key learning and teaching challenges in very large courses that involve practical mathematics, such as foundational finance.
Abstract
Purpose
This paper aims to identify and evaluate resolutions to key learning and teaching challenges in very large courses that involve practical mathematics, such as foundational finance.
Design/methodology/approach
A design-based research approach is used across three semesters to iteratively identify practical problems within the course and then develop and evaluate resolutions to these problems. Data are collected from both students and teachers and analysed using a mixed-method approach.
Findings
The results indicate that key learning and teaching challenges in large foundational finance courses can be mitigated through appropriate consistency of learning materials; check-your-understanding interactive online content targeting foundational concepts in the early weeks; connection points between students and the coordinator to increase teacher presence; a sustained focus on supporting student achievement within assessments; and signposting relevance of content for the broader program and professional settings. Multiple design iterations using a co-design approach were beneficial to incrementally improve the course and consider multiple perspectives within the design process.
Practical implications
This paper develops a set of design principles to provide guidance to other practitioners who seek to improve their own courses.
Originality/value
The use of design-based research and mixed-method approaches that consider both student and teacher perspectives to examine the design of very large, foundational finance courses is novel.
Details
Keywords
David E. Favre, Dorothe Bach and Lindsay B. Wheeler
This study aims to understand the extent to which a faculty development program that includes a week-long course design experience followed by sustained support changes new…
Abstract
Purpose
This study aims to understand the extent to which a faculty development program that includes a week-long course design experience followed by sustained support changes new faculty's perceptions, beliefs and teaching practices. The authors employed the teacher professional knowledge and skill (TPK&S) framework and characteristics of effective educational development interventions to drive the program development, implementation and assessment.
Design/methodology/approach
This study utilized a mixed methods approach. Data sources include pre-/mid-/post-program responses to a validated survey, pre-/post-program course syllabi analyzed using a validated rubric and pre-/post-classroom observations collected using the Classroom Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM (COPUS) instrument.
Findings
Findings indicate transformative effects for participants' beliefs about their teaching and changes to their instructional practices. Significant and practical effects were observed across different portions of the program for increases in participants' self-efficacy, endorsement of a conceptual change approach toward teaching and perceptions of institutional support. Participants produced more learning-focused syllabi and many moved toward more student-centered instructional approaches in their teaching practices.
Research limitations/implications
Due to the voluntary nature of the new faculty development program, this study may have been limited by participant self-selection bias and differential sample sizes for the study's individual measures. Future research should consider designs which maximize faculty participation in measurement across all data sources.
Originality/value
This study addresses shortcomings in prior studies which utilized limited data sources to measure intervention impact and answers the call for more rigorous research to obtain a more complete picture of instructional development in higher education.
Details