File Name: trust in schools a conceptual and empirical analysis .zip
A longitudinal study of Chicago elementary schools shows the central role of relational trust in building effective education communities.
- Trust in schools: a conceptual and empirical analysis
- Case Study On Motivation Pdf
- Trust in schools: a conceptual and empirical analysis
- Conceptual framework
Trust in schools: a conceptual and empirical analysis
Collaborative learning is a widely used instructional method, but the learning potential of this instructional method is often underused in practice. Therefore, the importance of various factors underlying effective collaborative learning should be determined. In the current study, five different life sciences undergraduate courses with successful collaborative-learning results were selected.
This study focuses on factors that increased the effectiveness of collaboration in these courses, according to the students. Nine focus group interviews were conducted and analyzed. Results show that factors evoking effective collaboration were student autonomy and self-regulatory behavior, combined with a challenging, open, and complex group task that required the students to create something new and original. The design factors of these courses fostered a sense of responsibility and of shared ownership of both the collaborative process and the end product of the group assignment.
In addition, students reported the absence of any free riders in these group assignments. Interestingly, it was observed that students seemed to value their sense of achievement, their learning processes, and the products they were working on more than their grades.
It is concluded that collaborative learning in higher education should be designed using challenging and relevant tasks that build shared ownership with students.
In collaborative learning, students participate in small-group activities in which they share their knowledge and expertise. In these student-driven activities, the teacher usually acts as a facilitator Kirschner, In science education, a deep-learning approach is crucial for understanding concepts and complex processes Van Boxtel, Besides these cognitive benefits, collaborative learning provides social skills needed for future professional work in the field of science.
Just forming groups, however, does not automatically result in better learning and motivation Salomon and Globerson, ; Gillies, ; Khosa and Volet, Insight into factors that facilitate collaborative learning is critical for understanding how collaboration can be used effectively in higher education.
Therefore, in the present study, we explore factors that optimize the quality of collaboration, using examples of effective group work in five different life sciences courses. Explaining things to one another and discussing subject matter may lead to deeper understanding, to recognition of misconceptions, and to the strengthening of connections between new information and previously learned information Wittrock, The question of how to organize collaboration in a way that promotes these kinds of interactions is paramount.
Decades of research on group work have resulted in the identification of various factors that potentially enhance the effectiveness of collaboration. These factors can be differentiated as primary factors design characteristics and secondary or mediating factors group-process characteristics. The nature of the task has been shown to be an important factor as well. Open and ill-structured tasks promote higher-level interaction and improve reasoning and applicative and evaluative thinking to a greater extent than closed tasks Gillies, In addition, complex tasks provoke deeper-level interactions than simple tasks Hertz-Lazarowitz, According to this theory, collaboration is enhanced when positive interdependence exists among group members.
This is achieved when students perceive the contribution of each individual to be essential for the group to succeed in completing the assigned activity Johnson and Johnson, Positive interdependence results in both individual accountability and promotive interaction. According to Slavin , , collaborative learning is rarely successful without group rewards.
In higher education, however, findings on the effects of reward-based interdependence are inconclusive. The main concern is that rewards stimulate extrinsic motivation and may be detrimental to intrinsic motivation Parkinson and St. George, Intrinsically motivated students put effort into a task because they are interested in the task itself, while extrinsically motivated students are interested in the reward or grade Deci and Ryan, Strong incentives, such as grades, could steer student motivation toward the reward and subsequently reduce the task to being a means to an end.
Serrano and Pons , however, found that using rewards individual grades created high positive interdependence in group work at a university level. In contrast, Sears and Pai found that rewards were not crucial factors affecting group behavior. Their study showed that groups continued to work even after the reward was removed, whereas the efforts of students working individually decreased after the reward was removed.
In contrast, the observations of Brewer and Klein indicated that students in groups with given roles plus rewards interacted significantly more frequently than students in groups with given rewards only or in groups without structured interdependence factors.
Over structuring interaction processes, on the other hand, could threaten intrinsic motivation and disturb natural interaction processes Dillenbourg, Although it is widely accepted that positive interdependence has been shown to be crucial in evoking social interaction, in practice, university students often tend to merely go through the motions and choose the solution requiring the least effort, which explains why positive interdependence often does not emerge Salomon and Globerson, Additional methods are necessary to encourage quality interactions that enhance learning.
Moreover, the mixed results of university education studies concerning structuring interdependence—using either rewards or task structuring—do not solve the challenge of how to create interdependence without disturbing the intrinsic motivation of students.
Forcing students to interact could endanger student autonomy and motivation, while merely putting students together has been shown to be ineffective. Despite the considerable amount of research on collaborative learning, less is known about how to structure university-level group work in order to capitalize on the benefits of collaborative learning.
The studies discussed earlier focused on primary and secondary education and are not fully applicable to higher education, because students in undergraduate classes may have different schedules and often have not met before.
Moreover, group work of university students is mostly organized outside class hours in the absence of teachers. Furthermore, literature in this area may be limited in applicability, as many studies of factors affecting collaboration have used quasi experimental designs, in which outcomes of two or three designs were compared Johnson and Johnson, A restriction of this method is that only the hypothesized independent variables are studied, while other important factors contributing to effectiveness might be overlooked.
In our study, we approached the theme retrospectively, investigating the learning of student groups known to have collaborated and achieved highly, according to their teachers. Rather than focusing on learning outcomes, we explored how group work in these courses was structured. We explicitly focused on positive examples of effective collaborative learning, as best practices should be communicated to others Dewey, , p.
In the current study, we selected five different life sciences undergraduate courses that comprised successful group-work assignments. The specific question this study aimed to address was, according to the students, what factors increased collaboration in these courses?
By uncovering the factors that make collaborative learning fruitful, we aim to provide useful guidelines for instructors implementing collaborative learning. The present study involved focus group interviews with nine groups of second- and third-year students of five different undergraduate life sciences courses.
We depended heavily on these focus group interviews to develop our understandings. Furthermore, the group exchanges of experiences and perspectives promoted breadth, as well as depth, in our understandings of the cognitive, behavioral, and situational factors contributing to the effectiveness of the collaboration. The particular courses were selected because they all implemented group work that, according to teacher assessments and student evaluations, was very effective.
We approached the instructors of these courses with the request to ask their students to volunteer in focus group discussions. Students were willing to participate in these focus group discussions, although not all students were able to meet at the scheduled times. No specific reward was promised for participating in focus group discussions. Between two and 10 students participated in each of the nine focus group interviews see Table 1. We focused on five courses that were all small-enrollment, upper-division courses in which 15—35 students participated per course.
In all courses, collaborative activities occurred during class hours but also outside of class. In some courses, the out-of-class cooperative activities even exceeded the in-class activities. Course A: The first course was part of a biology honors program. Students had to perform all the activities necessary to produce the book.
The project was strongly student-led, and students assigned themselves tasks necessary for finishing the project. Course B: Students in the immunology course, mostly third-year students, were assigned the task of writing, in groups of four, a short research project on an immunological topic.
The assignment was structured in three parts: in part 1, groups designed a draft of their proposal; in part 2, the groups peer reviewed the draft of another group; and in part 3, the groups received the draft and comments of yet another group, which they had to finish and present. The assignment comprised approximately half of the course. Course C: In the advanced cell biology course, three small teams of four or five students collaborated intensively during a semester of 15 weeks to formulate three PhD proposals within an overarching theme.
Because the course was student-led, the teachers refrained from guiding the students in their decisions, instead taking a facilitating role by asking critical questions and providing feedback.
As a result of the project, the teams presented and defended their research program and the three research proposals before a jury of experts. Course D: The objective of the molecular cell biology course was to learn to design a research project in groups of four. In this course, students were required to complete multiple assignments, such as reviewing a paper, developing a research proposal, designing experiments, and writing and defending their proposals.
Groups met with their supervisor once a week and were supposed to keep the course coordinator informed on their progress. Course E: As a part of the pharmacy course, third-year students, in groups of four to six participants, were required to analyze the quality of a specific pharmacotherapy.
The assignments were authentic and were provided by external commissioning companies. Interviewers stimulated and moderated discussions, ensuring depth as well as diversity. To focus and structure the interviews and to stimulate the sharing of discussion outcomes, we listed the answers to the two questions on a flip chart.
First, the intentions of the interview were clarified, followed by an explanation of the confidential nature of the interview. All students agreed and gave permission for the interviews to be audiotaped. All of the authors conducted one or more interviews, with the first author K.
Data were analyzed by the first and fourth authors K. Stage 1 comprised reading and rereading the transcripts to identify text units relevant to the subject of challenge. Given the aim of the focus group interviews, this meant ignoring small talk and sorting discussion units related to the two interview questions into focal issues.
Stage 2 comprised identifying and coding themes related to the two main interview questions regarding 1 factors and 2 added value, using NVivo version 10 a qualitative data-analysis computer software package. First, open coding was applied. The answers to both questions, however, evoked answers that pointed to intermediary variables affecting the outcomes of collaboration.
The interactions provoked by the complexity of the task seemed to connect complexity with learning outcomes. Therefore, when axial coding was applied, we decided to develop three clusters of codes focused on the factors of effective collaboration, the mediating variables, and the added value of collaboration.
Subsequently, selective coding was applied, wherein codes were clustered into larger sets informed by theory Braun and Clarke, Only factors that were mentioned in more than half of the focus groups were kept. This resulted in two sets of factors. The first set of factors related to the design of the group assignment autonomy, group size, task design, and teacher expectations.
The second set consisted of mediating variables related to the working processes of the groups team and task regulation, promotive interaction, interdependence, responsibility, and mutual support and motivation. Reliability is considered in terms of equivalence and internal consistency Sim and Wright, Given the complexity and inhomogeneity of group discourse, agreement testing was constrained to core concepts or themes of substantive importance Kidd and Parshall, Internal consistency was acquired by having one team member moderating all but one of the interviews Kidd and Parshall,
Case Study On Motivation Pdf
Skip to search form Skip to main content You are currently offline. Some features of the site may not work correctly. DOI: An empirical analysis of faculty trust in colleagues and trust in the principal demonstrates that faculty trust is an important aspect of the openness and health of school climate. View PDF. Save to Library. Create Alert.
An empirical analysis of faculty trust in colleagues and trust in the principal demonstrates that faculty trust is an important aspect of the openness.
Trust in schools: a conceptual and empirical analysis
A conceptual framework is an analytical tool with several variations and contexts. It can be applied in different categories of work where an overall picture is needed. It is used to make conceptual distinctions and organize ideas.
This study involved an analysis of faculty trust in a large southwestern institution. After reviewing the literature, we identified a valid and reliable instrument, the Higher Education Faculty Trust Inventory, to measure higher education faculty trust in administrators, colleagues, and students. We then used this instrument to gauge various aspects of faculty trust, and we found significant trust differences among professors of varying academic ranks i. We found, however, no significant trust differences in regard to race. Finally, we discuss the findings within a context of implications for future research and practice in higher education.
This book immerses prospective administrators in the realities of practice and decision-making through the use of a wide range of open-ended case studies.
Contemporary Communication Research Methods Pdf. University of Southern California The various interpersonal communication skills required for effective communication are. Scholarly Communication is located on the fourth floor of Newman Library.
Case study 2: Think deliberately and strategically about whom to ask. A case study is unique within the social sciences for its focus of study on a single entity, which can be a person, group or organization, event, action, or situation. No annoying ads, no download limits, enjoy it and don't forget to bookmark and share the love! Employee Motivation Books. What's your best time of day?. Herzberg's Motivation-Hygiene Theory Two Factor Theory To better understand employee attitudes and motivation, Frederick Herzberg performed studies to determine which factors in an employee's work environment caused satisfaction or dissatisfaction.
Scientific research is often divided into two classes: conceptual research and empirical research. There used to be distinct ways of doing research and a researcher would proudly claim to be one or the other, praising his method and scorning the alternative. Today the distinction is not so clear. Conceptual research focuses on the concept or theory that explains or describes the phenomenon being studied. What causes disease?
The conceptual foundations of trust as a multi‐dimensional construct are reviewed, and relevant related issues are discussed with a focus on trust in schools.
Collaborative learning is a widely used instructional method, but the learning potential of this instructional method is often underused in practice. Therefore, the importance of various factors underlying effective collaborative learning should be determined. In the current study, five different life sciences undergraduate courses with successful collaborative-learning results were selected. This study focuses on factors that increased the effectiveness of collaboration in these courses, according to the students. Nine focus group interviews were conducted and analyzed. Results show that factors evoking effective collaboration were student autonomy and self-regulatory behavior, combined with a challenging, open, and complex group task that required the students to create something new and original. The design factors of these courses fostered a sense of responsibility and of shared ownership of both the collaborative process and the end product of the group assignment.
An empirical analysis of faculty trust in colleagues and trust in the principal demonstrates that faculty trust is an important aspect of the openness and health of school climate. Finally, a research agenda for the study of trust in schools is sketched. Report bugs here. Please share your general feedback.