Quality Teaching in Science: an Emergent Conceptual Framework
Achieving quality in higher education is a complex task involving the interrelationship of many factors. The influence of the teacher is well established and has led to some general principles of good teaching. However, less is known about the extent that specific disciplines influence quality teaching. The purposes of the paper are to investigate how quality teaching is perceived in the sciences and from these perceptions to develop for discussion a framework for teaching practice in the sciences. A New Zealand study explored the views of national teaching excellence award winners in science on quality teaching in undergraduate science. To capture all possible views from this expert panel, a dissensus-recognising Delphi method was used together with sensitising concepts based on complexity and wickedity. The emergent conceptual framework for quality teaching in undergraduate science highlighted areas of consensus and areas where there were a variety of views. About the purposes of science and its knowledge base, there was relative consensus, but there was more variable support for values underpinning science teaching. This highlighted the complex nature of quality teaching in science. The findings suggest that, in addition to general and discipline-specific influences, individual teacher values contribute to an understanding of quality in undergraduate science teaching.
KeywordsQuality teaching Science Dissensus Delphi Complexity Bernstein
We thank the members of the expert panel including Gary Bold, Juliet Gerard, Kevin Gould, Judy Magee, Derek Moot and Michael Walker.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
This project was reviewed and approved by Massey University Human Ethics Committee Southern B Application 14/01.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Ako Aotearoa. (2016). Procedures and criteria for tertiary teaching excellence award nominations. Retrieved from https://akoaotearoa.ac.nz/sites/default/files/TTEA%202016%20-%20Criteria%20and%20Guidelines.pdf.
- Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: Open University Press.Google Scholar
- Bell, W. (1997). Foundation of futures studies, human science for a new era. Volume 1: history, purposes. Knowledge. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
- Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control, and identity: theory, research, critique. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
- Biggs, J. B. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university: what the student does (4th ed.). Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill/Society for Research into Higher Education/Open University Press.Google Scholar
- Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 3–7.Google Scholar
- Coates, J. (1996). An overview of futures methods. In R. A. Slaughter (Ed.), The knowledge base of futures studies: organisations, practices, products (pp. 57–75). Hawthorn: DDM Media Group.Google Scholar
- Cranton, P. (2006). Understanding and promoting transformative learning: a guide for educators of adults (2nd ed.). San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc..Google Scholar
- Davis, B., & Sumara, D. (2006). Complexity and education: inquiries into learning, teaching, and research. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Entwistle, N. (2003). Concepts and conceptual frameworks underpinning ETL project. Edinburgh: ETL project.Google Scholar
- Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(23), 8410–8415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
- Handelsman, J., Ebert-May, D., Beichner, R., Bruns, P., Chang, A., DeHaan, R., … Wood, W. B. (2004). Scientific teaching. Science, 304(5670), 521–522.Google Scholar
- Harvey, L., & Knight, P. T. (1996). Transforming higher education. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education: Open University Press.Google Scholar
- Jordens, J. Z., & Zepke, N. (2014). Towards rethinking research on quality in higher education. Paper presented at the Research and Development in Higher Education: Higher Education in a Globalized World, 7–10 July 2014, Hong Kong.Google Scholar
- Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., & Whitt, E. J. (2005). Student success in college: creating conditions that matter (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
- Lopatto, D., Alvarez, C., Barnard, D., Chandrasekaran, C., Chung, H. M., Du, C., … et al. (2008). Undergraduate research genomics education partnership. Science, 322(5902), 684–685. doi: 10.1126/science.1165351.
- Meyer, J., & Land, R. (2003). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: linkages to ways of thinking and practising within disciplines. Occasional Report 4. Retrieved from http://www.etl.tla.ed.ac.uk/docs/ETLreport4.pdf.
- New Zealand Vice-Chancellors' Committee. (2015). The NZ University system. Retrieved from http://www.universitiesnz.ac.nz/nz-university-system.
- Ramsden, P., & Callender, C. (2014). Review of the national student survey: Appendix A: literature review. Retrieved from http://www.hefce.ac.uk/media/hefce/content/pubs/indirreports/2014/Review,of,the,NSS/2014_nssreviewa.pdf.
- Treagust, D. F., & Tsui, C.-Y. (2014). General instructional methods and strategies. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. II, pp. 303–320). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Trowler, V. (2010). Student engagement literature review. https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/evidencenet/Student_engagement_literature_review.
- Zepke, N. (2017). Student engagement in neoliberal times: theories and practices for learning and teaching in higher education. Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar