Student teachers’ reflections of advantages, disadvantages, and learning related to lecturers' different pedagogical methods

Arne Sørensen; Pål Lagestad

doi:10.15561/20755279.2024.0601

Authors

Arne Sørensen Nord University https://orcid.org/0009-0007-7955-0636
Pål Lagestad Nord University https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4608-8039

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15561/20755279.2024.0601

Keywords:

Student teacher, pedagogical methods, experienced learning, advantages, disadvantages

Abstract

Background and Study Aim. Improving the quality of teaching in higher education is essential. Equally important is obtaining a detailed understanding of students' reflections on their educational experiences. The purpose of this study was to evaluate students’ reflections related to their learning and the advantages and disadvantages of different pedagogical methods. Material and Methods. A mixed-methods design was employed, including questionnaires and follow-up interviews with students. A 15-credit course in a master’s degree program in physical education was conducted using different teaching methods over three consecutive years. After completing the course, 59 students filled out a questionnaire that measured their reported learning outcomes from eight different pedagogical methods. Once the quantitative data was analyzed, seven students were randomly selected for individual in-depth interviews. Results. The quantitative data revealed that students generally reported good learning outcomes across all pedagogical methods. No gender differences were found in any of the eight methods. The main results from the in-depth interview analyses showed that students identified both advantages and disadvantages in all methods. According to students' reflections, all methods contributed to learning, and a combination of lectures and practical activities produced especially good outcomes. Conclusions. The results of this study highlight the importance of using a variety of methods when planning and executing university teaching. It is also essential to be aware of the disadvantages of each method and to work on minimizing them. Additionally, lecturers are encouraged to conduct research on their own teaching practices to improve the quality of education.

Author Biographies

Arne Sørensen, Nord University

Arne.sorensen@nord.no; Faculty for Teacher Education and Arts; Bodø, Norway.

Pål Lagestad, Nord University

Pal.a.lagestad@nord.no; Faculty for Teacher Education and Arts; Bodø, Norway.

References

Biesta GJJ. Beautiful Risk of Education. London: United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis Group; 2013.

Gutiérrez M, Tomás JM. The role of perceived autonomy support in predicting university students’ academic success mediated by academic self-efficacy and school engagement. Educational Psychology, 2019;39(6): 729–748. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2019.1566519

Biggs J, Tang C. Teaching for Quality Learning at University. Maidenhead: United Kingdom: McGraw-Hill Education; 2011.

Bremner N. From learner-centred to learning-centred: Becoming a ‘hybrid’ practitioner. International Journal of Educational Research, 2019;97: 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2019.06.012

Børte K, Nesje K, Lillejord S. Barriers to student active learning in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 2023;28(3): 597–615. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1839746

Sørensen A, Lagestad P, Mikalsen HK. Student Teacher Experiences of Learning and Pedagogical Involvement Using a Student-Centered Learning Approach. Education Sciences, 2023;13(9): 965. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13090965

Goodman BE, Barker MK, Cooke JE. Best practices in active and student-centered learning in physiology classes. Advances in Physiology Education, 2018;42(3): 417–423. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00064.2018

Lea SJ, Stephenson D, Troy J. Higher Education Students’ Attitudes to Student-centred Learning: Beyond ‘educational bulimia’? Studies in Higher Education, 2003;28(3): 321–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070309293

Theobald EJ, Hill MJ, Tran E, Agrawal S, Arroyo EN, Behling S, et al. Active learning narrows achievement gaps for underrepresented students in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2020;117(12): 6476–6483. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1916903117

Morosan C, Dawson M, Whalen EA. Using Active Learning Activities to Increase Student Outcomes in an Information Technology Course. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education, 2017;29(4): 147–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/10963758.2017.1382369

Ribeiro-Silva E, Amorim C, Aparicio-Herguedas JL, Batista P. Trends of Active Learning in Higher Education and Students’ Well-Being: A Literature Review. Frontiers in Psychology, 2022;13: 844236. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.844236

Opdal PA. To Do or To Listen? Student Active Learning vs. the Lecture. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 2022;41(1): 71–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-021-09796-3

Willemsen A, N. Gosen M, Van Braak M, Koole T, De Glopper K. Teachers’ open invitations in whole-class discussions. Linguistics and Education, 2018;45: 40–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2018.03.001

Al-Modhefer AK, Roe S. Nursing students’ attitudes to biomedical science lectures. Nursing Standard, 2009;24(14): 42–48. https://doi.org/10.7748/ns.24.14.42.s47

French S, Kennedy G. Reassessing the value of university lectures. Teaching in Higher Education, 2017;22(6): 639–654. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2016.1273213

Miller CJ, McNear J, Metz MJ. A comparison of traditional and engaging lecture methods in a large, professional-level course. Advances in Physiology Education, 2013;37(4): 347–355. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00050.2013

Paulus M, Kunkel J, Schmidt SCE, Bachert P, Wäsche H, Neumann R, et al. Standing Breaks in Lectures Improve University Students’ Self-Perceived Physical, Mental, and Cognitive Condition. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2021;18(8): 4204. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18084204

Mann S, Robinson A. Boredom in the lecture theatre: An investigation into the contributors, moderators and outcomes of boredom amongst university students. British Educational Research Journal, 2009;35(2): 243–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920802042911

Sharp JG, Sharp JC, Young E. Academic boredom, engagement and the achievement of undergraduate students at university: a review and synthesis of relevant literature. Research Papers in Education, 2020;35(2): 144–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2018.1536891

Johnson DW, Johnson RT. An Educational Psychology Success Story: Social Interdependence Theory and Cooperative Learning. Educational Researcher, 2009;38(5): 365–379. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09339057

Wilson KJ, Brickman P, Brame CJ. Group Work. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 2018;17(1): fe1. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-12-0258

Burdett J. (editor). Making Groups Work. University Students' Perceptions; 2003.

Knight JK, Wood WB. Teaching More by Lecturing Less. Cell Biology Education, 2005;4(4): 298–310. https://doi.org/10.1187/05-06-0082

Eddy SL, Brownell SE, Thummaphan P, Lan MC, Wenderoth MP. Caution, Student Experience May Vary: Social Identities Impact a Student’s Experience in Peer Discussions. Schinske J (ed.) CBE—Life Sciences Education, 2015;14(4): ar45. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-05-0108

Farashahi M, Tajeddin M. Effectiveness of teaching methods in business education: A comparison study on the learning outcomes of lectures, case studies and simulations. The International Journal of Management Education, 2018;16(1): 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2018.01.003

Burdon WM, Munro K. Simulation – is it all worth it? The impact of simulation from the perspective of accounting students. The International Journal of Management Education, 2017;15(3): 429–448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2017.07.001

Pape-Lindstrom P, Eddy S, Freeman S. Reading Quizzes Improve Exam Scores for Community College Students. Schinske, J (ed.) CBE—Life Sciences Education, 2018;17(2): ar21. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-08-0160

Gurung R. How Do Students Really Study (and Does It Matter)? Teaching of Psychology, 2002;2(50):149–155.

Gagné M, Gagné M. Self-Determination Theory in the Work Domain. In: Gagné M (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Work Engagement, Motivation, and Self-Determination Theory, Oxford University Press; 2014. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199794911.013.026

Reeve J, Jang H. What teachers say and do to support students’ autonomy during a learning activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 2006;98(1): 209–218. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.209

Ryan RM, Deci EL, [eds.]. Self-Determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness. Guilford Press; 2017. https://doi.org/10.1521/978.14625/28806 [Accessed 26th October 2024].

Wehrwein EA, Lujan HL, DiCarlo SE. Gender differences in learning style preferences among undergraduate physiology students. Advances in Physiology Education, 2007;31(2): 153–157. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00060.2006

Niemi H, Nevgi A, Virtanen P. Towards self-regulation in web-based learning. Journal of Educational Media, 2003;28(1): 49–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/1358165032000156437

Kulturel-Konak S, D’Allegro ML, Dickinson S. Review Of Gender Differences In Learning Styles: Suggestions For STEM Education. Contemporary Issues in Education Research (CIER), 2011;4(3): 9–18. https://doi.org/10.19030/cier.v4i3.4116

Creswell JW, Clark VLP. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage publications; 2017.

Fetters MD, Curry LA, Creswell JW. Achieving Integration in Mixed Methods Designs—Principles and Practices. Health Services Research, 2013;48(6pt2): 2134–2156. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12117

Østerås N, Gulbrandsen P, Garratt A, Benth J, Dahl FA, Natvig B, et al. A randomised comparison of a four- and a five-point scale version of the Norwegian Function Assessment Scale. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 2008;6(1): 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-6-14

O’Donoghue P. Statistics for Sport and Exercise Studies. An Introduction. London: Routledge; 2012.

Armour K. Research Methods in Physical Education and Youth Sport.. 1st ed. Routledge; 2012. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203807170

Johannessen A, Tufte PA, Christoffersen L. Introduksjon til samfunns-vitenskapelig metode [Introduction to social scientific method]. Oslo, Norway: Abstract publisher A/S; 2016. (In Norwegian).

Brinkmann S, Kvale S. Interviews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing. Los Angeles: USA, LA; 2009.

Hastie P, Hay P, Armour K, Macdonald D. Research methods in physical education and youth sport. Routledge: Oxon; 2012.

Kvale S. The Qualitative Research Interview. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 1983;14(1–2): 171–196. https://doi.org/10.1163/156916283X00090

Ying X, Li H, Jiang S, Peng F, Lin Z. Group Laziness: The Effect of Social Loafing on Group Performance. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 2014;42(3): 465–471. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2014.42.3.465

Sitzmann T, Ely K, Brown KG, Bauer KN. Self-Assessment of Knowledge: A Cognitive Learning or Affective Measure? Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2010;9(2): 169–191. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.9.2.zqr169

Deslauriers L, McCarty LS, Miller K, Callaghan K, Kestin G. Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the classroom. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2019;116(39): 19251–19257. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1821936116