| Figures | ||
| 6.1 | Example of a conceptual question in a physics class (adapted from Oliveira et al., 2009, p. 99). | 61 |
| 6.2 | General description of the work developed by Oliveira (2011). | 68 |
| 9.1 | Correlations between total number of questions, cognitive cost of question generation, and lack of knowledge about question generation. | 107 |
| 9.2 | Correlations between total number of factual questions and easiness of question verbalization, and between total number of thought-provoking questions and cognitive cost of question generation. | 108 |
| 9.3 | Question matrix used during the training phase of study 2. | 109 |
| 9.4 | Changes of number of factual and thought-provoking questions across the phases of the study. | 110 |
| 9.5 | Total numbers of questions that students in the “control” and “experimental” classes generated. | 112 |
| 11.1 | Respondents and their programmes. | 136 |
| 11.2 | Respondents’ areas of study. | 137 |
| 11.3 | Thinking ahead about a learning task. | 137 |
| 11.4 | Providing information early. | 138 |
| 11.5 | Clear thinking about tasks. | 138 |
| 11.6 | Being analytic. | 139 |
| 11.7 | Dependent on the nature of the task. | 139 |
| 11.8 | Used a range of sources. | 139 |
| 11.9 | The PReflective model. | 140 |
| 12.1 | Example of a semi-annual compilation of students’ written question within a specific curricular unit and his personal selection of those he considered to be most relevant for his/her learning path. | 154 |
| 14.1 | The process of changing teaching conceptions – two different models. | 172 |
| 14.2 | Main differences between two broad teaching conceptions according to David and co-authors model. | 172 |
| 14.3 | David Kember and co-workers’ “five-teaching-conceptions-two-orientations-to-teaching” model (based on Kember, 1997, p. 260). | 173 |
| 14.4 | Main teaching conceptions of university teachers’ according to Prosser and Trigwell. Based on Prosser, Trigwell, and Taylor (1994, pp. 200–204). Original labels A, C, D, E and F for teaching conceptions was maintained, in order to facilitate cross interpretations of the reader between this particular chapter and the original studies. | 173 |
| 14.5 | Teaching approaches of academics (based on Trigwell, Prosser, & Taylor, 1994). | 174 |
| 14.6 | PTA identification through the ATI responses of two academics. | 176 |
| 14.7 | The question sheet strategy: Global description and an illustrative example. | 176 |
| 15.1 | The role of feedback and academic self-reflection on academic growth. | 189 |
| 15.2 | Maintenance/adaptation/innovation academic practice (MAI model). | 190 |
| 15.3 | The instructional coaching meetings. | 190 |
| 15.4 | Teaching strategies used by Teacher A (2012/2014). | 191 |
| 15.5 | Teaching strategies used by Teacher B (2012/2014). | 192 |
| 15.6 | Teaching strategies used by Teacher C (2012/2014). | 193 |
| 15.7 | Teaching strategies used by Teacher D (2012/2014). | 194 |
| 16.1 | Feedback strategies developed in the teaching context of ‘Evolution’ (2006/2014). | 204 |
| 16.2 | Translation of quality criteria of students’ posts into a quantitative mark for assessment purpose. | 206 |
| 16.3 | Students’ posts on the ODF over three months. | 206 |
| 16.4 | Categorization of the teachers’ posts according to Garrison et al.’s (2001) model ‘teaching presence’. | 207 |
| 16.5 | Example of one type of feedback posted by the teacher’s to the students’ on the OFD710. | 207 |
| 16.6 | Transcripts of an excerpt from the student debates highlighting examples of oral feedback given by the teacher. | 209 |
| 16.7 | Levels of student skills and competencies assessed during group discussion. | 210 |
| 16.8 | Example of the teacher’s written feedback profile considering the critical analysis of one group of students. | 211 |
| 16.9 | Example of the teacher’s written feedback profile considering the critical analysis of one group of students. | 212 |
| Tables | ||
| 4.1. | Summary of number of presentations at UK international SoTL conferences 2001–2003 by overall topic, type of scholarship and country of origin. | 35 |
| 5.1 | Interviewee data. | 54 |
| 5.2 | Interview questions. | 55 |
| 6.1 | Context and participants of the studies carried on in stage 1. | 63 |
| 6.2 | Context and participants of the studies carried on in stage 2. | 67 |
| 7.1 | Components of a personal learning styles pedagogy (Evans & Waring, 2014). | 78 |
| 8.1 | The main results of the research. | 96 |
| 9.1 | Examples of questions participants generated. | 106 |
| 10.1 | Scheme for categorising unknowns about objects, and examples of the corresponding questions. | 122 |
| 12.1 | Research around undergraduate science at the University of Aveiro (2000–2015). | 146 |
| 12.2 | Questions coding throughout the ‘Aveiro project’. | 155 |
| 16.1 | Quality of co-constructive written formative feedback (Pedrosa-de-Jesus & Guerra, 2018). | 203 |
List of Figures and Tables
In: Academic Growth in Higher Education
Editors:
and
Helena Pedrosa-de-Jesus
Helena Pedrosa-de-Jesus
Search for other papers by Helena Pedrosa-de-Jesus in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Helena Pedrosa-de-Jesus in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Mike Watts
Mike Watts
Search for other papers by Mike Watts in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Mike Watts in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed