Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
This study used self-report and observation techniques to investigate how students study computer-based materials. In addition, it examined if a study method called SOAR can facilitate computer-based learning. SOAR is an acronym that stands for the method's 4 theoretically driven and empirically supported components: select (S), organize (O), associate (A), and regulate (R). There were 2 experiments. In Experiment 1, 114 undergraduates completed a questionnaire about how they study computer-based materials. Students reported using more ineffective study strategies than effective SOAR strategies. In Experiment 2, 108 different undergraduates read an online text about wildcats and then created materials that reflected their preferred study method, the full SOAR method, or parts of the SOAR method. Specifically, the control group created their preferred study notes; the S group created a complete set of linear notes; the SO group created graphically organized matrix notes; the SOA group created a matrix and associations; and the SOAR group created a matrix, associations, and practice questions that aid self-regulation. The SOAR materials were also created in line with four theoretical principles for technology design (Mayer, 2009). Students studied their materials in preparation for fact and relationship tests. Results from both tests showed that those using the full SOAR method outscored the control group and most other groups using parts of the SOAR method. In addition, observations of students' preferred study methods confirmed the Experiment 1 self-reports that unaided students use ineffective study strategies. Study limitations, suggestions for future research, and instructional implications are presented.
This study used self-report and observation techniques to investigate how students study computer-based materials. In addition, it examined if a study method called SOAR can facilitate computer-based learning. SOAR is an acronym that stands for the method's 4 theoretically driven and empirically supported components: select (S), organize (O), associate (A), and regulate (R). There were 2 experiments. In Experiment 1, 114 undergraduates completed a questionnaire about how they study computer-based materials. Students reported using more ineffective study strategies than effective SOAR strategies. In Experiment 2, 108 different undergraduates read an online text about wildcats and then created materials that reflected their preferred study method, the full SOAR method, or parts of the SOAR method. Specifically, the control group created their preferred study notes; the S group created a complete set of linear notes; the SO group created graphically organized matrix notes; the SOA group created a matrix and associations; and the SOAR group created a matrix, associations, and practice questions that aid self-regulation. The SOAR materials were also created in line with four theoretical principles for technology design (Mayer, 2009). Students studied their materials in preparation for fact and relationship tests. Results from both tests showed that those using the full SOAR method outscored the control group and most other groups using parts of the SOAR method. In addition, observations of students' preferred study methods confirmed the Experiment 1 self-reports that unaided students use ineffective study strategies. Study limitations, suggestions for future research, and instructional implications are presented.
This study of sociology faculty in twelve private colleges and universities compares teaching with textbooks and textbook alternatives in undergraduate classes. Faculty explain that textbooks provide a breadth of material that is organized and streamlined in a way that promotes consistency across instructors, facilitates content delivery to students with a range of abilities, and reduces course preparation time. Despite these benefits, faculty have a strong preference for textbook alternatives. Faculty argue that readings, like monographs and journal articles, develop students' critical reading and thinking skills. Additionally, when instructors design courses with alternative readings they engage their own critical reading and thinking, as they critique and synthesize the literature in their discipline in order to curate texts for the syllabus. We argue that teaching courses with alternative readings creates course experiences where students and faculty engage with a discipline together.Texts are essential to course design. They shape how professors organize units, structure lectures, and assess learning. Despite the importance of choosing texts, systematic research concerned with why instructors choose textbooks or choose alternative readings is scarce. We surveyed thirty-six sociology professors at twelve small and medium private institutions to bring the pedagogy of choosing texts to the fore. This research asks, why do instructors choose textbooks, monographs, or other types of readings? How do instructors understand how the choice of one form of text or another shapes teaching and learning?Our inductive qualitative analysis of open-ended survey interview questions, revealed that faculty view textbooks and their alternatives as fundamentally different. Faculty noted that textbooks had particular strengths, like providing a breadth of material that is organized and streamlined in a way that promotes consistency across instructors, ensuring that departmental learning objectives are achieved with a variety of instructors. They explained that the books facilitate content delivery to students with a range of abilities, and that textbooks reduce course preparation time for faculty. Still, the faculty in our study had a strong preference for teaching without textbooks.Instructors saw alternatives to textbooks, like monographs and articles, as time-intensive to teach, but the best way to advance students' critical reading and thinking skills, a finding congruent with the academic literacy literature. In addition, instructors viewed the task of finding textbook alternatives as a way to engage their own critical reading and thinking skills in their teaching, a benefit rarely discussed in the literature. We argue that teaching courses with alternative readings creates a course experience where both students and faculty engage in evaluative reading and creative reasoning. Unfortunately, according to our participants, the conversations regarding course design around textbook alternatives are lacking on campus. The overwh...
Educators have increasing responsibility for creating equitable and inclusive classroom models, but research suggests that they "may not have the necessary attitudes, dispositions, or perhaps more importantly, the professional skills to successfully instruct students in diverse, inclusive classrooms" (Van Laarhoven, Munk, Lynch, Boxma, & Rouse, 2007, p. 440). This study examines the effects of an interdisciplinary, co-taught curriculum in a Master in Teaching program on teacher candidates' predicted versus actual use of instructional strategies in inclusive K-12 classrooms. Teacher candidates (N=140) completed surveys at three data points: post-course, post-internship, and at the end of the first year of teaching. Participants reported using the following strategies most frequently with all K-12 students: "think alouds/explicit modeling," "direct instruction," and "cooperative learning." Constructivist approaches received the lowest mean scores. This study contributes to the emerging research about integrated teacher education programs and how they can better prepare future educators for creating inclusive classrooms.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.