4.5 Article

Students' Responses to Emergency Remote Online Teaching Reveal Critical Factors for All Teaching

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL EDUCATION
卷 97, 期 9, 页码 2472-2485

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00736

关键词

First-Year Undergraduate/General; Upper-Division Undergraduate; Laboratory Instruction; Collaborative/Cooperative Learning; Distance Learning/Self Instruction; Hands-on Learning/Manipulatives

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Our goal was to understand how students chemistry learning environments changed and how students responded to the wholesale transition to online learning. We deployed surveys to students enrolled in nine undergraduate chemistry courses at all levels. Survey 1 was deployed 2 weeks post-transition (N = 208); Survey 2, a week before semesters end (N = 124, 1/3 new responders). Survey 1 asked students to describe pre/post-transition class and laboratory; to report extra-class resource use; and to write about their engagement, emotions, and motivation for learning online. Survey 2 asked students to estimate pre/post-transition verbal exchanges on a typical day; to respond to Likert-style questions constructed from Survey 1 comments; and to describe challenges of learning chemistry online including what they missed about laboratory. Results show classes changed little from a traditional lecture while laboratories changed dramatically from decision-rich first-person experiences to suboptimal passive observation. Students were sorted into profiles, according to described challenges and their adaptive behaviors. Written comments and verbal exchange data show students lost rich peer communication networks which was deleterious to understanding and motivation to engage and persist. Unexpectedly, this study pointed out more clearly the importance of cognitive processing limitations, social dynamics, peer interaction, real-time discourse, and hands-on manipulation in any educational setting (in-person or online).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据