From values and beliefs to teaching practice – a case study of novice tutors
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The quality of teaching in higher education is not only influenced by teachers’ pedagogical knowledge, but also their personal values and beliefs [1]. The integration of both into an aligned teaching practice, which extends beyond transmission of factual knowledge, is an important step for effective teaching [2]. This integration is often based on experience, but can be facilitated by different types of staff development initiatives [3]. However, a problem arises for non-permanent teaching staff like PhD students and postdoctoral fellows that lack teaching experience, and training. How does this lack affect their teaching practice and what strategies do they use to compensate for it?In this pilot study, we interviewed four project tutors in the same course to investigate their beliefs, attitudes and teaching practices. All tutors were non-permanent teaching staff with different backgrounds and levels of teaching experience. The interviews allowed us to get detailed information about previous teaching experiences, educational training, and attitudes towards students.We observed two distinct pairs of tutors. The tutors in the first pair (P1) were active as sports coaches, while the tutors in the second pair (P2) were not involved in sports. Interestingly, the two sports coaches actively verbalized their values and beliefs – like trust, honesty and open communication – and how they strived to integrate them into their teaching practice. They strongly emphasized the importance of providing each student with opportunities for personal and professional development. Furthermore, there was a clear difference in the tutors’ attitudes towards teaching. Tutors in P1 believed that their responsibility as teachers was not limited to offering project related knowledge and help, but extended to assisting students with group dynamics, communication and social aspects, whereas tutors in P2 focused solely on providing project knowledge. Our observations highlight two different strategies used by tutors to cope with limited amounts of teaching experience. Tutors in P1 had developed the necessary strategies to integrate their values and beliefs with their practice during coaching activities. They were able to transfer this knowledge and apply it in the new teaching context. In this way, they expanded their teaching practice based on their coaching experiences. Tutors in P2, on the other hand, did not see their values and beliefs as part of their teaching practice and limited it to project related knowledge. Thus, the ability to utilize values and beliefs expands the teaching practices, and some of the non-permanent staff can compensate for a lack of teaching experience by drawing on experiences and training gained in other fields.[1]Bingimlas, K., & Hanrahan, M. (2010). The Relationship between Teachers’ Beliefs and their Practice: How the Literature can inform Science Education Reformers and Researchers. In Contemporary Science Education Research: International Perspectives (pp. 415–422). Ankara: Turkey:Pegem Akademi.[2] Delaney, J., & Johnson, A. (2010). Students ’ Perceptions of Effective Teaching in Higher Education. Distance Education and Learning Technologies: Memorial University of Newfoundland.[3] Teaching Practices Teachers’ Beliefs and Attitudes. (2009). In Creating Effective Teaching and Learning Environments: First Results from TALIS (pp. 87–135). OECD.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,014 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,010 | 0,006 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,007 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».