Discussion: Five teacher profiles in student-centred curricula based on their conceptions of learning and teaching. ¶
By: Alejandra Arreola Triana on April 1, 2019, 4:32 p.m.
Sorry to be posting this a bit late; last Friday I had an unexpected influx of work that needed to be handled immediately, and I was not able to post the week's paper.
The last time, Lucian Ngeze and I discussed the paper "Identifying Key Features of Effective Active Learning: The Effects of Writing and Peer Discussion", by Linton et al. (You can see the discussion here.) When we discussed this paper, I wondered whether teacher attitudes toward active learning could play a role in the implementation of these activities, and wrote that I wanted to find a paper about that.
This week, we will discuss the paper "Five teacher profiles in student-centred curricula based on their conceptions of learning and teaching" by Jacobs et al (2014) published in BMC Medical Education. You can find it here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25324193.
I really enjoyed reading this paper! The researchers polled teachers from two medical schools in The Netherlands, some from a university that has been using student-centred techniques since its inception, and one that started using these techniques about ten years ago. They applied the COLT questionnaire, which they developed, to gauge the teachers' perspectives on learning and teaching. From the answers, the researchers found that the professors fall into five distinc profiles, form most student centred to less student centred, and that there is some correlation with how much time they spent teaching, and the university where they work.
The authors do a great job describing the strenghts and weaknesses of the paper, and discuss the implications of their findings. Particularly, they discuss how information about teaching profiles can be useful in planning curricula and development activities.
This paper is particularly relevant because the university where I teach recently changed to a more student-centred curriculum, and there were some "growing pains" associated with this--in some cases the material was easy to adapt, and the professors adapted to the new conditions, but in some other cases, there was considerable resistance. On reading the paper and the questionnaire, I think I'd fall into the "Intermediate" category, and now I am curious to see what I could find if I polled my colleagues like Jacbs et al. did.
I look forward to hearing you opinions about this paper.
(If you would like to share a paper and discuss it, please let me know!)
Alex Arreola | México
AuthorAID Community Moderator