پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 25 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 932 |
| تعداد مقالات | 7,652 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 12,494,325 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 8,885,729 |
رابطه رشته‌های تحصیلی جستجوگرانه با نتایج یادگیری: بررسی اثرات میانجی سطوح درگیری دانشجویان | ||
| اندیشه های نوین تربیتی | ||
| مقاله 6، دوره 17، شماره 3 - شماره پیاپی 61، آبان 1400، صفحه 125-151 اصل مقاله (628.4 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22051/jontoe.2021.30094.2961 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| ,وهاب بخش آزادی1؛ اصغر سلطانی* 2 | ||
| 1کارشناس ارشد برنامه‌ریزی درسی، دانشگاه شهید باهنر کرمان، کرمان، ایران | ||
| 2دانشیار گروه علوم تربیتی، دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی، دانشگاه شهید باهنر کرمان، کرمان، ایران | ||
| چکیده | ||
| این پژوهش با هدف بررسی روابط ساختاری میان رشتة تحصیلی و نتایج یادگیری دانشجویان، با میانجی سطوح مختلف درگیری دانشجویان شامل تفکر سطح بالا، تلاش‌های درسی، یادگیری مشارکتی، تعامل استاد – دانشجو، روابط میان فردی و حمایت‌های دانشگاهی انجام شد. نوع پژوهش توصیفی و طرح آن همبستگی بود. جامعه آماری شامل 5759 نفر از دانشجویان کارشناسی رشته‌های جستجوگرانه دانشگاه شهید باهنر کرمان بود که از این میان 360 نفر با روش نمونهگیری طبقهای نسبتی از 4 دانشکده انتخاب شدند. ابزار گردآوری دادهها پرسشنامه درگیری دانشجویان (اقتباس از پایک و همکاران، 2012) بود. پایایی این ابزار 78/0 برآورد گردید و روایی سازه ابزار نیز با استفاده از روش تحلیل عاملی تأییدی تأیید شد. تحلیل دادههای پژوهش با نرم‌افزار لیزرل و از طریق مدل‌سازی معادله ساختاری انجام شد. نتایج نشان داد که مدل ارائه شده بهخوبی با دادهها مطابقت دارد و رابطه بین متغیرها را به درستی تببین می‌کند. همچنین بر اساس نتایج حاصل، رابطه رشتة تحصیلی جستجوگرایانه با تفکر سطح بالا، تلاش‌های درسی دانشجویان، یادگیری مشارکتی و تعامل استاد – دانشجو مثبت و معنی‌دار بود. علاوه بر این، اگرچه اثر مستقیم رشتة تحصیلی بر نتایج یادگیری معنی‌دار نبود، اما اثر غیرمستقیم آن، با میانجی یادگیری مشارکتی، مثبت و معنی‌دار بود. با این‌حال، سایر اثرات میانجی مؤلفه‌های مربوط به سطوح درگیری نیز معنی‌دار نبودند. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| دانشجو؛ دانشگاه؛ رشتة‌تحصیلی جستجوگرانه؛ سطح درگیری؛ نتایج یادگیری | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| The Relationship between Investigative Courses and Learning Outcomes: Exploring the Mediating Effects of Students’ Engagement Levels | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Vahhab Bakhsh Azadi1؛ Asghar Soltani2 | ||
| 1M.A. in Curriculum, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Kerman, Iran | ||
| 2Associate Professor of Curriculum, Department of Education, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Kerman, Iran | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Abstract The purpose of current study was to investigate the structural relationships between the investigative courses and students’ learning outcomes, mediated by students’ engagement levels including high-level thinking, classroom efforts, participatory learning, faculty-student interaction, interpersonal relationships, and institutional supports. Research method was descriptive with a correlational design. The results showed that the model fitted the data well and explained the relationship between the variables. Also, based on the results, the relationship of investigative courses with high-level thinking, student classroom efforts, participatory learning, and faculty-student interaction was positive and significant. In addition, although the direct effect of the investigative courses on learning outcomes was not significant, its indirect effect, mediated by of participatory learning, was positive and significant. Furthermore, other mediating effects of the components related to levels of engagement were not significant. Introduction The present study investigates the relationship between investigative courses and students' learning outcomes considering the mediating role of their levels of engagement in the university learning environments through a structural equation model. Accordingly, the type of students’ engagement with their field of study and its curricula, as well as activities related to teaching and learning, such as students' interaction with faculty members as mediator, affect learning outcomes and socialization of students in the university environment. (Deng & Yao, 2020; Ko et al., 2016; Weidman et al., 2001; Weidman, 1989). Research on student engagement in the university environment shows that this variable is significantly related to students' learning outcomes and their academic achievement (Ko et al., 2016; Pike and Kuh, 2005; Pike et al., 2003 Gellin, 2003). The relationship between the field of study and the learning outcomes and academic achievement of students is mainly explained by the Holland’s person-environment theory (1997). Holland (1997) classifies students into six personality types or environments: investigative, realistic, artistic, social, enterprising, and conventional (Rocconi et al., 2020; Kim and Sax, 2014). A review of the research literature shows that various studies have investigated the mediating role of student engagement levels in the relationship between the field of study and student learning outcomes. These studies include Kim and Sax (2011), Kim and Sax (2014), Rocconi et al. (2020), Ko et al. (2016), Feldman et al. (2008), and Pike et al. (2012). Research hypothesis The main hypotheses of the current research are: There is a significant relationship between students’ field of study and their levels of engagement. There is a significant relationship between students' levels of engagement and their learning outcomes. There is a significant relationship between students’ field of study and learning outcomes, mediated by their levels of engagement. Method The present research is descriptive and employs a correlational design. The participants of the study were 5759 undergraduate students from faculties of mathematics and computer, science, technology and engineering, and physics at Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman. Using proportional stratified sampling method, a sample of 360 student were selected. Data were collected using a questionnaire adopted from Pike et al. (2012). It includes 7 subscales and 28 items. To examine items related to the variables of high-level thinking, academic effort, collaborative learning, faculty-student interaction, institutional supports, and learning outcomes, we used a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (always) to 4 (never). Also, to measure the items related to the variable of interpersonal relations, the seven-point scale of Ozgood was used. Questionnaires were randomly distributed among the participants and collected after completion. The students' participation in completing the questionnaire was completely voluntary. In order to calculate the reliability of the instrument, the internal consistency method and estimation of the Cronbach's alpha coefficient were used. The total reliability of the questionnaire was calculated to be 0.78, that is acceptable (Field et al., 2012). In order to estimate the construct validity of the questionnaire, confirmatory factor analysis method was used via LISREL software. In the initial analysis, one item from the variable “teacher-student interaction” and two items from the variable “learning outcomes” were removed from the questionnaire due to the 0.30 cut-off point. Results Table 1 shows the fit indices of the structural equation model. The results showed the acceptable fit indices. (SRMR = 0.074, RSMEA = 0.049, p = 0.000, df = 278, 599.27). The results also showed that (NFI) = 0.86, (NNFI) = 0.91, and (CFI) = 0.92 (CFI), which indicates the acceptable fit. Also, RMSEA was less than 0.05 and SRMR was less than 0.08, which revealed a very good fit. Figure 1 shows the direct relations between the variables. Accordingly, the relationship between investigative courses and learning outcomes was not significant (R2 = 0.69, p <0.05, t = -0.69, β = -0.06). The results also suggested that the relationship between investigative courses and high-level thinking was positive and significant (R2 = 0.14, p <0.01, t = 6.4, β = 0.38). In this regard, 14% of the variance of higher-level thinking was explained by investigative courses. Also, the relationship between investigative courses and academic efforts (R2 =.02, p <0.01, t = 3.64, β = 0.24) was positive and significant. Therefore, only 0.02% of the variance of students' academic efforts was explained by the field of study. Moreover, the relationship between investigative courses and participatory learning (R2 = 0.16, p <0.01, t = 3.5, β = -0.24) was negative and significant. Accordingly, 16% of the variance of students' participatory learning was explained by the investigative courses. The results also showed that the relationship between investigative courses and faculty-student interaction was negative and significant (R2 = 0.29, p <0.01, t = 2.64, β = -0.19). Thus, 29% of the variance of faculty-student interaction was explained by investigative courses. In addition, the results indicated that the relationship between investigative courses with institutional supports (R2 = 0.00, p <0.05, t = -0.86, β = -0.05) and the relationship between investigative courses with interpersonal relationships (R2 = 0.15, p <0.05, t = 0.37, β = 0.02) were not significant. The results also suggested that the relationship between high-level thinking and learning outcomes (p <0.05, t = 1.31, β = 0.15) and the relationship between interpersonal relationships with learning outcomes were not significant (p <0.05, t = 1.45, β = 0.15). The results also revealed that the relationship between participatory learning and learning outcomes (p <0.01, t = 3.83, β = 0.52) and the relationship between institutional supports and learning outcomes (p <0.01, t 5.55 =, 0.89 = β) were positive and significant. Also, the relationship between academic efforts and learning outcomes (p <0.01, t = 2.61, β = -0.48) and the relationship between faculty-student interaction and learning outcomes (p <0.01, t = -3.69, β = -0.82) were negative and significant. The results also showed that a total of 11% of the variance of students' learning outcomes was explained by predictive variables (i.e., the field of study and each of the levels of student engagement (R2 = 0.11). Discussion and Conclusion The results revealed some significant and positive relationships between the variables. In addition, the mediating role of participatory learning, as a subcomponent of students’ engagement, was significant. These findings have important implications for teaching and learning in the process of implementing the curricula of investigative courses. The results of the structural equation modeling showed that the model fit the data well. Accordingly, the variables of investigative courses and educational levels explain 11% of the variance of students' learning outcomes. Furthermore, investigative courses explain 16% of the variance of participatory learning, which mediates its role in the relationship between investigative courses and students' learning outcomes. It is therefore suggested that curriculum planners and faculty members pay more attention to improving and strengthening these factors in the structure, content, and implementation of curricula in classrooms. In this regard, the role of the variable “participatory learning” is crucial among the levels of student engagement, because it affects, directly and indirectly, the learning outcomes of students. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Investigative course, Learning outcomes, Level of engagement, University, University student | ||
|
سایر فایل های مرتبط با مقاله
|
||
| مراجع | ||
|
Abdollahpour, H., Soltani, A., & Esmi, K. (2017). Predicting the out-of-classroom faculty-student interactions based on the faculty members’ educational behaviors and professional practices. Journal of Iranian Higher Education, 9, 152-133. (Text in Persian). Bahonar, A., Chalabi, P., Mostafavi, E. I., & Yazdi, M. (2011) The personality congruence of Iranian veterinary students with their field of study. Iranian Journal of Medical Education, 11, 222-229. (Text in Persian). Deng, Y., & Yao, X. (2020). Person-environment fit and proactive socialization: Reciprocal relationships in an academic environment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 120, 1-51. Farhadi, A., Saki, K., Ghadampour, E., Khaliligeshnigani, Z., & Chehri, P. (2016). Predictions dimensions of academic engagement-based capital components psychological. Educ Strategy Med Sci, 9, 127-133. (Text in Persian). Feldman, K. A., Smart, J. C., & Ethington, C. A. (2008). Using Holland's theory to study patterns of college student success: The impact of major fields on students. In Higher Education (pp. 329-380). Springer, Dordrecht. Field, A. P., Miles, J., & Field, Z. (2012). Discovering statistics using R. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Gellin, A. (2003). The effect of undergraduate student involvement on critical thinking: A meta-analysis of the literature, 1991–2000. Journal of College Student Development, 44, 746–762. Foroutanbagha, P., Kavousian, J., & Pashasharifi, H. (2018). The efficiency of procrastination reduction training on lowering self-handicapping and enhancing academic engagement among university students. Middle Eastern Journal of Disability Studies, 8, 1-8. (Text in Persian). Hakimzadeh, R., Ghasemi, M., & Moghaddamzadeh, A. (2016). Investigating the role of educational intermediation in relation to participation styles in students' learning and academic performance. Journal of Research in Educational Systems, 10, 109-132. (Text in Persian). Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environment (3rd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Kim, Y. K., & Sax, L. J. (2011). Are the effects of student-faculty interaction dependent on major? An examination using multi-level modeling. Research in Higher Education, 52, 589–615. Kim, Y. K., & Sax, L. J. (2014). The effects of student–faculty interaction on academic self-concept: Does academic major matter? Research in Higher Education, 55, 780-809. Ko, J. W., Park, S., Yu, H. S., Kim, S. J., & Kim, D. M. (2016). The structural relationship between student engagement and learning outcomes in Korea. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25, 147-157. Kuh, G. D. (2003). What we’re learning about student engagement from NSSE. Change, 35, 24–32. Kuh, G. D., Hu, S., & Vesper, N. (2000). ‘‘They shall be known by what they do:’’ An activities-based typology of college students. Journal of College Student Development, 41, 228–244. Miller, A., Sarraf, S., Dumford, A., & Rocconi, L. (2016). Construct validity of NSSE Engagement Indicators. Bloomington: Center for Postsecondary Research Retrieved from http://nsse.indiana.edu/pdf/psychometric_portfolio/Validity_ConstructValidity_FactorAnalysis_2013.pdf. Accessed 17 July 2017. Montazergheib, T., & Keikhaznejad, M. (2012). The relationship between job attention and John Holland personality tyoes among elementary teachers and principals. Journal of Career & organizational Counseling, 4, 92 -104. (Text in Persian). Mousavinezhad, S.H., Mahdizadeh, I., and Salehabadi, S. (2018). Comparison of academic self-efficacy, academic engagement and academic performance between Birjand University of Teachers and Birjand University of Medical Sciences. Journal of Birjand University Medical Science, 25, 126-134. (Text in Persian). Nunnally, J. C., Bernstein, I. H., & Berge, J. M. T. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd Ed.). New York: McGraw-hill. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research (Vol. 2). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Pike, G. R., & Kuh, G. D. (2005). A typology of student engagement for American colleges and universities. Research in Higher Education, 46, 185–210. Pike, G. R., Kuh, G. D., & Gonyea, R. M. (2003). The relationship between institutional mission and students’ involvement and educational outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 44, 243–263. Pike, G. R., Kuh, G. D., McCormick, A. C., Ethington, C. A., & Smart, J. C. (2011). If and when money matters: The relationships among educational expenditures, student engagement, and students’ learning outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 52, 81–106. Pike, G. R., Smart, J. C., & Ethington, C. A. (2012). The mediating effects of student engagement on the relationships between academic disciplines and learning outcomes: An extension of Holland’s theory. Research in Higher Education, 53, 550-575. Rezaei, A., & Bahadorikhosroshahi, J. (2019). The role of cognitive assessments and epistemological beliefs in predicting students' academic engagement. Shenakht Journal of Psychology and Psychiatry, 6, 59-70. (Text in Persian). Rocconi, L. M., Liu, X., & Pike, G. R. (2020). The impact of person-environment fit on grades, perceived gains, and satisfaction: an application of Holland’s theory. Higher Education, 1-18. doi: 10.1007/s10734-020-00519-0 Soltani, A., Boostani, D., & Golestani, S. (2020). Exploring the strategies of faculty-student interactions: A grounded theory study in Iranian academic context. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 26, 1-13. doi: 10.1016/j.lcsi.2020.100408 Umbach, P. D., & Wawrzynski, M. R. (2005). Faculty do matter: The role of college faculty in student learning and engagement. Research in Higher Education, 46, 153–184. Weidman, J. C. (1989). Undergraduate socialization: A conceptual approach. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. V, pp. 289–323). New York: Agathon. Weidman, J. C., Twale, D. J., & Stein, E. L. (2001). Socialization of graduate and professional students in higher education: A perilous passage? ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, Volume 28, Number 3. Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series. San Francisco, CA: ERIC. Xerri, M. J., Radford, K., & Shacklock, K. (2018). Student engagement in academic activities: a social support perspective. Higher ٍducation, 75, 589-605. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 837 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 293 |
||
