Students and lecturers share educational experiences, each in their role: Students as part of their learning context and lecturers as part of their work environment. But how much of their experiences are similar? A questionnaire was developed to provide insight into the experiences of research integration of undergraduate students (N = 2336) and lecturers (N = 379). For measurements, the Research Attitudes in Vocational Education Questionnaire (RAVE-Q), and Experience in Research Integration scale were applied to the student survey design. For lecturers, all items of the student surveys were rephrased into items related to lecturers’ perceptions of their students’ attitudes and experiences. The findings show that students and lecturers share perceptions about the role of research in their related vocational field and about research integration. However, important cognitive and affective differences were found between students and lecturers regarding research practice. Implications for further research and educational design will be discussed.
DOCUMENT
De Experience Tool: Mapping facts and practice to develop (spatial) experiences (Moes, Schrandt, Manuputty, Admiraal & van der Mark, 2019), is in eerste instantie ontwikkeld door docent-onderzoekers en een oud-student van het Amsterdam Fashion Institute (AMFI) om studenten beter onderbouwde afwegingen te laten maken over inrichting van bijvoorbeeld metrostations, winkels maar ook tentoonstellingen. De toolkit is dus niet ontwikkeld in het kader van Designing Experiencescapes of De Tentoonstellingsmaker van de 21ste Eeuw, maar deze onderzoeken hebben wel een belangrijke inhoudelijke basis gegeven voor de toolkit en zijn dus zeer relevant voor de (toekomstige) tentoonstellingsmaker. Het doel van deze tool is om spelers te inspireren bij en informeren over het creëren van belevingen in (hoofdzakelijk) fysieke ruimtes. De tool is voor iedereen die geïnteresseerd is in het creëren van belevingen en met name interessant voor studenten die een beleving willen neerzetten, in welke vorm dan ook en professionals uit de museale en de retailsector die invloed hebben op het inrichten van fysieke ruimtes.
MULTIFILE
Background: The importance of clarifying goals and providing process feedback for student learning has been widely acknowledged. From a Self-Determination Theory perspective, it is suggested that motivational and learning gains will be obtained because in well-structured learning environments, when goals and process feedback are provided, students will feel more effective (need for competence), more in charge over their own learning (need for autonomy) and experience a more positive classroom atmosphere (need for relatedness). Yet, in spite of the growing theoretical interest in goal clarification and process feedback in the context of physical education (PE), little experimental research is available about this topic. Purpose: The present study quasi-experimentally investigated whether the presence of goal clarification and process feedback positively affects students’ need satisfaction and frustration. Method: Twenty classes from five schools with 492 seventh grade PE students participated in this quasi-experimental study. Within each school, four classes were randomly assigned to one of the four experimental conditions (n = 121, n = 117, n = 126 and n = 128) in a 2 × 2 factorial design, in which goal clarification (absence vs. presence) and process feedback (absence vs. presence) were experimentally manipulated. The experimental lesson consisted of a PE lesson on handstand (a relatively new skill for seventh grade students), taught by one and the same teacher who went to the school of the students to teach the lesson. Depending on the experimental condition, the teacher either started the lesson explaining the goals, or refrained from explaining the goals. Throughout the lesson the teacher either provided process feedback, or refrained from providing process feedback. All other instructions were similar across conditions, with videos of exercises of differential levels of difficulty provided to the students. All experimental lessons were observed by a research-assistant to discern whether manipulations were provided according to a condition-specific script. One week prior to participating in the experimental lesson, data on students’ need-based experiences (i.e. quantitatively) were gathered. Directly after students’ participation in the experimental lesson, data on students’ perceptions of goal clarification and process feedback, need-based experiences (i.e. quantitatively) and experiences in general (i.e. qualitatively) were gathered. Results and discussion: The questionnaire data and observations revealed that manipulations were provided according to the lesson-scripts. Rejecting our hypothesis, quantitative analyses indicated no differences in need satisfaction across conditions, as students were equally satisfied in their need for competence, autonomy and relatedness regardless of whether the teacher provided goal clarification and process feedback, only goal clarification, only process feedback or none. Similar results were found for need frustration. Qualitative analyses indicated that, in all four conditions, aspects of the experimental lesson made students feel more effective, more in charge over their own learning and experience a more positive classroom atmosphere. Our results suggest that under certain conditions, lessons can be perceived as highly need-satisfying by students, even if the teacher does not verbally and explicitly clarify the goals and/ or provides process feedback. Perhaps, students were able to self-generate goals and feedback based on the instructional videos.
DOCUMENT
