Weitere Kapitel dieses Buchs durch Wischen aufrufen
The quest for improved student engagement in active learning and social environments in new generation universities surpasses all prior teaching and learning commitments of educational institutions. While educators are expected to undertake effective steps towards realizing this engagement, it is also incumbent upon students themselves to partake in active learning processes. In tandem with the above, this study was done to establish views of academic staff at the Public University in Ankara, Turkey, regarding the practices of students geared towards realizing student engagement in active learning and social environments. This was done basing on five major dimensions: making student learning meaningful, fostering a sense of competence and autonomy, embracing collaborative learning, establishing positive educator-student relationships and promoting mastery learning orientations. In the findings, dimensions like making students’ learning meaningful as well as promoting mastery learning orientations were found to be highly successful, while fostering a sense of competence and autonomy as well as establishing positive educator-student relationships was found to be moderately successful. Embracing collaborative learning, meanwhile, was found to be at a low level of success. Equally, some statistical differences were found in academic staff’s demographic variable of academic qualification in the dimensions of making students’ learning meaningful as well as promoting mastery learning orientations. However, no statistically significant result was obtained in the gender and professional experience variables.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
Ahlfeldt, S., Mehta, S., & Sellnow, T. (2005). Measurement and analysis of student engagement in university classes where varying levels of PBL methods of instruction are in use. Higher Education Reserach & Development, 24(1), 5–20. CrossRef
Ashwin, P., & McVitty, D. (2015). The meanings of student engagement: Implications for policies and practices. In A. Curaj et al. (Eds.), The European higher education area (pp. 343–359., ch 23). London: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20877-0_23. CrossRef
Bestor, A. E. (1990). Educational wastelands: The retreat from learning in our public schools. Urbana: University of Illinois press.
Bokor, J. (2012). University of the future: A thousand-year-old industry on the cusp of profound change. Ernst and Young.
Bonwell, C., & Eison, J. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom, ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1. Washington, DC: George Washington University.
Chism, G. (2006). Fall is a time for change. Journal of Food Science Education, 5, 59. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-4329.2006.00013.x. CrossRef
Coates, H. (2007). A model of online and general campus-based student engagement. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(2), 121–141. CrossRef
Connelly, F., & Micheal, P. (1988). Teachers as curriculum planners: Narratives of experience. Education resources information centre. ED 295928.
Cox, A. M. (2011). Students’ experience of university space: An exploratory study. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 23(2), 197–207.
Edutopia. (2012). How do we know when students are engaged?. https://www.edutopia.org/blog/student-engagement-definition-ben-johnson
Edutopia. (2014). Golden rules for engaging students in active learning activities. https://www.edutopia.org/blog/golden-rules-for-engaging-students-nicolas-pino-james
Erçetin, Ş. Ş. (2000). Lider sarmalında vizyon. Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım Şirketi.
Erçetin, Ş. Ş., Açıkalın, Ş. N., & Bülbül, M. Ş. (2013). A multi-dimensional approach to leadership in chaotic environments. In S. Banerjee (Ed.), Chaos and complexity theory for management: Nonlinear dynamics (pp. 89–104). USA: IGI Global. CrossRef
Goldman, R. (1992). Reading ads socially. UK: Taylor & Francis.
Goldman, S. R., Petrosino, A., Sherwood, R. D., Garrison, S., Hickey, D., Bransford, J. D., & Pellegrino, J. W. (1992). Multimedia environments for enhancing science instruction paper presented at the NATO Advanced Study Institute on Psychological and Educational Foundations of Technology-Based Learning Environments, Columbary, Greece.
Grabinger, R. S., & Dunlap, J. C. (1995). Rich environments for active learning: A definition. ALT-J, 3(2), 5–34. CrossRef
Hargreaves, A. (2003). Teaching and learning in the knowledge society: Education in the age of insecurity. Philadelphia: Open university press.
Higgins, S. (2005). The impact of school environments: A literature review. The Centre for Learning and Teaching, School of Education, Communication and Language Science, University of Newcastle.
Lippman, P. C. (2010). Can the physical environment have an impact on the learning environment? OECD 2010. ISSN 2072-7925.
Marginson, S. (2011). Higher education and public good. Higher Education Quarterly, 65, 411–433. CrossRef
McCormick, A. (2012). NSSE National Survey of Student Engagement. Indiana University: National Survey of Student Engagement. Retrieved from http://nsse.iub.edu/html/quick_facts.cfm.
Morgan, P. (2008). Teacher perceptions of physical education in the primary school: Attitudes, values and curriculum preferences. Journal of Physical Education, 65(1), 46–56.
Partnerships for 21st Century Skills. (2002). 21st century learning environments. http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/route21/.
Pike, G. R., & Kuh, G. D. (2005). A Typology of student engagement for American Colleges and Universities. Research in Higher Education, 46(2), 185–209. CrossRef
Reid, J., & Hawkins, R. (2003). The emergence of the New Generation University. https://www.google.com.tr/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjOh6WwjZjXAhUIP5oKHYXEBuoQFgglMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fjournals.iupui.edu%2Findex.php%2Fmuj%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F20026%2F19696&usg=AOvVaw1BBfkxL2kVKM2CNr_f7T8z
Selingo, J. (2013). The next generation university. Education policy program. Washington D.C: New America Foundation.
Silverman, S., & Subramanian, P. R. (1999). Student attitude toward physical education and physical activity. Review of measurement issues & outcomes. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 19(11), 97–125.
Steinberg, A., & Almeida, C. (2004). From the margins to the mainstream: Effective learning environments for urban youth. Boston: Jobs for the Future.
Tanner, D., & Tanner, L. N. (2007). Curriculum development: Theory into practice (5th ed.). New York: Macmillan publishers.
Taylor, L., & Parsons, J. (2011). Improving student engagement. Current Issues in Education, 14(1).
The Glossary of education reform for journalists, parents and community leaders. 2016.
The University of Sheffield: Principles of student engagement.
The University of Washington: Centre for teaching and learning.
Trowler, V. (2010). Student engagement literature review. The Higher Education Academy. Department of Educational Research, Lancaster University.
Veen, W., & van Staalduinen, J. P. (2010). Chapter 24. The Homo Zappiens and its consequences for learning in universities. In U. D. Ehlers & D. Schneckenberg (Eds.), Changing cultures in higher education moving ahead to future learning (pp. 323–338). New York: Springer. CrossRef
- Staff Experiences Regarding Student Engagement in Active Learning and Social Environments in New Generation Universities
Şuay Nilhan Açıkalın
Şefika Şule Erçetin
- Chapter 6
Neuer Inhalt/© Stellmach, Neuer Inhalt/© Maturus, Pluta Logo/© Pluta