Home⇛Journal of Interdisciplinary Perspectives⇛vol. 2 no. 10 (2024)

Assessing Pedagogical Approaches in Bachelor of Elementary Education: A Focus on Practical Outcomes

Maria Victoria R. Santiago

Discipline: Education

 

Abstract:

The study aimed to assess the effectiveness of pedagogical approaches in teaching BEEd, focusing on their implementation. The study utilized a descriptive-correlational research design to determine the profile variables of the respondents, their assessment of the effectiveness of pedagogical approaches, and the extent of challenges and issues encountered by the faculty members in implementing pedagogical approaches. The study found that all pedagogical approaches used in teaching BEEd were assessed as highly effective. On the other hand, faculty members encountered various challenges while implementing pedagogical approaches. Despite these challenges, the study revealed no significant difference between respondents' assessments.



References:

  1. Acar, O.A. and Tuncdogan, A. (2019). Using the inquiry-based learning approach to enhance student innovativeness : A conceptual model, Teaching in Higher Education Critical Perspectives, 1 (2517), 895-909. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2018.1516636  
  2. Amineh, M., & Asl, H. R. (2015). The effectiveness of collaborative learning for EFL learners: A systematic review. English Language Teaching, 8(3), 19-31. https://rb.gy/mc7846
  3. Artino, A. R., & Taylor-Greene, S. J. (2014). Scaffolding reflective practice in pre-service teacher education. Reflective Teaching in Educational Leadership, 67(2), 167-188.
  4. Aster, B. D., & Shaw, L. F. (2018). Creating a safe space for respectful classroom debate. Journal of Political Science Education, 14(3)-325-342. https://rb.gy/62idpt
  5. Bangert-Drowns, R.(2019). Effectiveness of feedback interventions in K-12 science education. AERA Reviews of Educational Research, 39(3), 400-434.
  6. Borokhovski, E., Bernard, R. M., Tamim, R. M., Schmid, R. F., & Sokolovskaya, A. (2016). Technology-supported student interaction in post-secondary education: A meta-analysis of designed versus contextual treatments. Computers & Education, 96, 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.004
  7. Chen, M. A., Hwang, G., & Chang, Y. (2019). A reflective thinking‐promoting approach to enhancing graduate students’ flipped learning engagement, participation behaviors, reflective thinking and project learning outcomes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(5), 2288–2307. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12823 
  8. Facione, P. A. (2019). Critical thinking: A statement of core competencies. In P. A. Facione (Ed.), The disposition to think critically (3rd ed., pp. 25-50). Peter Lang.
  9. Friesen, S. (2022). Simulations in teacher education: A critical review of the literature. Journal of Teacher Education, 73(2), 189-204.
  10. Habib, H. (2017). A research of teacher effectiveness and its importance. National Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development, 2(3), 530-532.
  11. Hanushek, E. A., (2017).  Teachers’ college major, certification, and student achievement: Updated evidence from the MET project. Education Finance and Policy, 12(4), 420-444.
  12. Jin, H., & Kammermeier, K. (2020). Factors influencing the effectiveness of the debate format in science education: A systematic review. International Journal of Science Education, 42(18), 9262-9286. https://jns.scholar.princeton.edu/document/90
  13. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2013). Cooperative learning experiences in science. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education, Vol. 12, 1035-1070, Springer Netherlands.
  14. Liu, X., & Carless, D. (2023). Oral presentations: A review of research on student learning. Educational Psychology Review, 35(1), 1-25.
  15. Lang, H. Y., & Baek, J. Y. (2022). The effects of using concept maps on students' critical thinking and metacognition in science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 44(1), 122-140.
  16. Moon, J. (2013). Learning journal writing in ELT. English Teaching Practice & Critique, 12(3), 51-65.
  17. Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2020). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good practice. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(8), 1490-1508.
  18. Parsons, V. (2017). Wiley Stats Ref: Statitstics Reference Online. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
  19. Ruarte, D.E. (2019). Effective Pedagogies for Online Learning. Research Gate
  20. Sadler, D. R. (2018). Diagnostic classroom assessment: Purposes and practices. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 62, 149-158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2018.08.002
  21. Schudde, L., & Bernell, K. (2019). Educational Attainment and Nonwage Labor Market Returns inthe United States. AERA Open, 5(3), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1177/233285841987405
  22. Taufiqurrochman, R., & Rana, H. A. S. (2021). Video-Based Ice Breaker Game in the Department of Arabic Language Education. Ijaz Arabi Journal of Arabic Learning, 4(3), 557-569. https://doi.org/10.18860/ijazarabi.v4i3.13148
  23. Wang, M., Yuan, B., Kirschner, P. A., Kushniruk, A. W., & Peng, J. (2018). Reflective learning with complex problems in a visualization-based learning environment with expert support. Computers in Human Behavior, 87, 406–415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.01.025

Tools


Copyright © 2024  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic