ความสัมพันธ์ระหว่างนวัตกรรมการสอนและการเรียนรู้ตลอดชีวิต โดยมีวิธีการ เรียนรู้แบบลุ่มลึกเป็นตัวแปรส่งผ่านในนิสิตเภสัชศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยบูรพา
Article Sidebar
เผยแพร่แล้ว:
ก.ย. 15, 2019
คำสำคัญ:
นวัตกรรมการสอน การออกแบบรายวิชา วิธีการสอน เภสัชศาสตร์ศึกษา การเรียนรู้แบบลุ่มลึก การเรียนรู้ตลอดชีวิต
Main Article Content
บทคัดย่อ
วัตถุประสงค์: เพื่อตรวจสอบความสอดคล้องของข้อมูลเชิงประจักษ์กับโมเดลความสัมพันธ์ระหว่างนวัตกรรมการสอนและการเรียนรู้ตลอดชีวิต โดยมีการเรียนรู้แบบลุ่มลึกเป็นตัวแปรส่งผ่านในนิสิตเภสัชศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยบูรพา วิธีการ: การศึกษานี้เป็นการวิจัยภาคตัดขวางที่เก็บข้อมูลด้วยแบบสอบถามจำนวน 30 ข้อ จากนิสิตเภสัชศาสตร์ชั้นปีที่ 2-4 จำนวน 298 ราย ผลการวิจัย: นวัตกรรมการออกแบบรายวิชา (β=0.45, P<0.01) มีอิทธิพลทางตรงต่อการเรียนรู้แบบลุ่มลึกสูงกว่านวัตการรมวิธีการสอน (β=0.26, P<0.05) ในขณะที่นวัตกรรมทั้งสองนี้มีอิทธิพลทางอ้อมกับการเรียนรู้ตลอดชีวิตโดยมีค่าน้ำหนัก β=0.15, P<0.01 และ β=0.09, P<0.05 ตามลำดับ การตรวจสอบโมเดลความสัมพันธ์เชิงโครงสร้างพบว่ามีความสอดคล้องกับข้อมูลเชิงประจักษ์ (chi-square=293.21, df=255, P=0.05, RMSEA=0.02 (90% CI=0.00-0.03), SRMR=0.08, TLI=0.98 และ CFI=0.99) สรุป: การออกแบบรายวิชาที่สนับสนุนให้นิสิตมีการเรียนรู้แบบบูรณาการและสามารถนำความรู้ไปประยุกต์ใช้ในทางปฏิบัติได้ พร้อมกับมีการนำเทคโนโลยีการสอนที่เหมาะสมเข้ามาช่วยในการเรียนการสอนนั้น มีความสัมพันธ์กับการเรียนรู้แบบลุ่มลึกและการเรียนรู้ตลอดชีวิตของนิสิตเภสัชศาสตร์
Article Details
บท
บทความวิจัย
ผลการวิจัยและความคิดเห็นที่ปรากฏในบทความถือเป็นความคิดเห็นและอยู่ในความรับผิดชอบของผู้นิพนธ์ มิใช่ความเห็นหรือความรับผิดชอบของกองบรรณาธิการ หรือคณะเภสัชศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยสงขลานครินทร์ ทั้งนี้ไม่รวมความผิดพลาดอันเกิดจากการพิมพ์ บทความที่ได้รับการเผยแพร่โดยวารสารเภสัชกรรมไทยถือเป็นสิทธิ์ของวารสารฯ
References
1. Serdyukov P. Innovation in education: what works, what doesn’t, and what to do about it? J. Res. Inn. Teach & Learn. 2017; 10: 4-33.
2. Dudko SA. The role of information technologies in lifelong learning development. SHS Web of Confer- ences: EDP Sciences; 2016. p. 01019.
3. Gikas J, Grant MM. Mobile computing devices in higher education: Student perspectives on learning with cellphones, smartphones and social media. Internet High Educ. 2013; 19: 18-26.
4. Lee Y-J. A study on the effect of teaching innovation on learning effectiveness with learning satisfaction as a mediator. World Trans Eng Tech 2011; 9: 92-101.
5. Luca J, Oliver R. Developing an instructional design strategy to support generic skills development. Winds of change in a sea of learning: proceedings of the 19th Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE); 2002 December 8-11; Auckland, UNITEC Institute of Technology: ECU Publications; 2002. p. 401-11.
6. Baeten M, Kyndt E, Struyven K, Dochy F. Using student-centred learning environments to stimulate deep approaches to learning: Factors encouraging or discouraging their effectiveness. Educ Res Rev. 2010; 5: 243-60.
7. Farashahi M, Tajeddin M. Effectiveness of teaching methods in business education: A comparison study on the learning outcomes of lectures, case studies and simulations. Int J Manage Edu 2018; 16: 131-42.
8. Taradi SK, Taradi M, Radic K, Pokrajac N. Blending problem-based learning with Web technology positively impacts student learning outcomes in acid-base physiology. Adv Physiol Educ. 2005; 29: 35-9.
9. Blouin RA, Riffee WH, Robinson ET, Beck DE, Green C, Joyner PU, et al. Roles of innovation in education delivery. Am J Pharm Educ. 2009; 73: 154.
10. Fox BI. Information technology and pharmacy education. Am J Pharm Educ. 2011; 75: 86.
11. Stolte SK, Richard C, Rahman A, Kidd RS. Student pharmacists' use and perceived impact of educational technologies. Am J Pharm Educ. 2011; 75: 92.
12. Laal M. Impact of Technology on Lifelong Learning. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 2011; 28: 439-43.
13. Chan ZC. Student peer reviewers' views on teaching innovations and imaginative learning. Nurse Educ Today. 2016; 39: 155-60.
14. Chen T, Hu M. Influence of course design on learning approaches and academic performance in physical therapy students. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 2013; 93: 97-101.
15. Czerkawski BC. Designing deeper learning experiences for online instruction. J Interact Online Learn. 2014; 13: 29-40.
16. Garrison DR, Kanuka H. Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. Internet High Educ. 2004; 7: 95-105.
17. Lawless KA, Pellegrino JW. Professional development in integrating technology into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and answers. Rev Educ Res. 2007; 77: 575-614.
18. Tiwari A, Chan S, Wong E, Wong D, Chui C, Wong A, et al. The effect of problem-based learning on students’ approaches to learning in the context of clinical nursing education. Nurse Educ Today. 2006; 26: 430-8.
19. Nair C, Fisher D. A learning environment study of tertiary classrooms. Annual research forum of the Western Australia Institute for Educational research, Perth, WA; 1999.
20. Trigwell K, Prosser M. Improving the quality of student learning: the influence of learning context and student approaches to learning on learning outcomes. High Educ. 1991; 22: 251-66.
21. Biggs JB. Approaches to the Enhancement of Tertiary Teaching. High Educ Res Dev. 1989; 8: 7-25.
22. Biggs JB, Moore PJ. The process of learning. 3rd ed. New York: Prentice Hall; 1993.
23. Barros R, Monteiro A, Nejmedinne F, Moreira JA. The relationship between students’ approach to learning and lifelong learning. Psychology. 2013; 04: 792-7.
24. Tam M. Promoting deep learning: a conceptual model [online]. 1999 [cited Aug 17, 2018]. Available from: www.ln.edu.hk/tlc/info/lm/lm0599.htm
25. Klug J, Krause N, Schober B, Finsterwald M, Spiel C. How do teachers promote their students' lifelong learning in class? Development and first application of the LLL Interview. Teach Teach Educ. 2014; 37: 119–29.
26. Kirby JR, Knapper C, Lamon P, Egnatoff WJ. Development of a scale to measure lifelong learning. Int J Lifelong Educ 2010; 29: 291-302.
27. Chen JC, McGaughey K, Lord SM. Measuring students' propensity for lifelong learning. 2012 AAEE Conference; December 3-5; Melbourne, Victoria, Australia: Engineers Australia; 2012. p. 617.
28. Finsterwald M, Wagner P, Schober B, Lüftenegger M, Spiel C. Fostering lifelong learning – Evaluation of a teacher education program for professional teachers. Teach Teach Educ. 2013; 29: 144-55.
29. McKauge L, Stupans I, Owen SM, Ryan G, Woulfe J. Building critical reflection skills for lifelong learning in the emergent landscape of a national registration and accreditation scheme. J Pharm Pract. 2011; 24: 235-40.
30. Thailand Board of Investment. Thailand poised to be Asia's medical hub [online]. 2016. [cited Aug 17, 2018]. Available from: www.boi.go.th/upload/conte nt/TIR_MAY_56933.pdf.
31. Johnson JL. Self-authorship in pharmacy education. Am J Pharm Educ. 2013; 77: 1-6.
32. Hair JF, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC. Multivariate data analysis. Pearson Prentice Hall; 2003.
33. Kusalanont P. The Learning Styles of High School Thai and Australian Students: Kasetsart; 2006.
34. Polit DF, Beck CT. Nursing Research: Generating and Assessing Evidence for Nursing Practice: Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008.
35. Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE. Multivariate Data Analysis. 7th ed. New Jersey: Pearson Education; 2006.
36. Muthén LK, Muthén BO. Mplus user’s guide. 7th ed. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén; 2015.
37. Hooper D, Coughlan J, Mullen MR. Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electron J Bus Res Methods. 2008; 6: 53–60.
38. Makmee P. Development of a model of organizational effectiveness measurement for universities in Asean: multilevel structural equation model analysis. Journal of the Researcher Association. 2016; 21: 34-48.
39. Al-Mamary YH, Shamsuddin A, Abdul Hamid NA, Al-Maamari MH. Adoption of management informa tion systems in context of Yemeni organizations: A structural equation modeling approach. J Digit Inform Manag. 2015; 13: 429-44.
40. Hu Lt, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling 1999; 6: 1-55.
41. Chotima M, Blauw J. The influence of materialism on well-being among Thai adolescents. Scholar. 2016; 8: 141.
42. Fackler S, Malmberg L-E. Teachers' self-efficacy in 14 OECD countries: Teacher, student group, school and leadership effects. Teach Teach Educ. 2016; 56: 185-95.
43. Machado LAC, Telles RW, Costa-Silva L, Barreto SM. Psychometric properties of multidimensional health locus of control - a and general self-efficacy scale in civil servants: ELSA-Brasil Musculoskeletal Study (ELSA-Brasil MSK). Braz J Phys Ther 2016; 20: 451-60.
44. Kenny DA. Measuring model fit [online]. 2015 [cited Aug 1, 2019]. Available from: davidakenny.net/cm/ fit.htm.
45. Hinkle DE, Wiersma W, Jurs SG. Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences. 5th ed. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin; 2003.
46. Ozdamli F, Ozdal H. Life-long learning competence perceptions of the teachers and abilities in using information-communication technologies. Procedia - Soc Behav Sci 2015; 182: 718-25.
47. Chen TC, Hu MH. Influence of course design on learning approaches and academic performance in physical therapy students. Procedia - Soc Behav Sci 2013; 93: 97-101.
48. Wanner T, Palmer E. Personalising learning: Exploring student and teacher perceptions about flexible learning and assessment in a flipped university course. Comput Educ. 2015; 88: 354-69.
49. Boyle T, Ravenscroft A. Context and deep learning design. Comput Educ. 2012; 59: 1224-33.
50. Ellis RA, Hughes J, Weyers M, Riding P. University teacher approaches to design and teaching and concepts of learning technologies. Teach Teach Educ. 2009; 25: 109-17.
51. Mongelli A. Lifelong learning and innovation. Ital J Socio Educ 2010; 3: 41-58.
2. Dudko SA. The role of information technologies in lifelong learning development. SHS Web of Confer- ences: EDP Sciences; 2016. p. 01019.
3. Gikas J, Grant MM. Mobile computing devices in higher education: Student perspectives on learning with cellphones, smartphones and social media. Internet High Educ. 2013; 19: 18-26.
4. Lee Y-J. A study on the effect of teaching innovation on learning effectiveness with learning satisfaction as a mediator. World Trans Eng Tech 2011; 9: 92-101.
5. Luca J, Oliver R. Developing an instructional design strategy to support generic skills development. Winds of change in a sea of learning: proceedings of the 19th Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE); 2002 December 8-11; Auckland, UNITEC Institute of Technology: ECU Publications; 2002. p. 401-11.
6. Baeten M, Kyndt E, Struyven K, Dochy F. Using student-centred learning environments to stimulate deep approaches to learning: Factors encouraging or discouraging their effectiveness. Educ Res Rev. 2010; 5: 243-60.
7. Farashahi M, Tajeddin M. Effectiveness of teaching methods in business education: A comparison study on the learning outcomes of lectures, case studies and simulations. Int J Manage Edu 2018; 16: 131-42.
8. Taradi SK, Taradi M, Radic K, Pokrajac N. Blending problem-based learning with Web technology positively impacts student learning outcomes in acid-base physiology. Adv Physiol Educ. 2005; 29: 35-9.
9. Blouin RA, Riffee WH, Robinson ET, Beck DE, Green C, Joyner PU, et al. Roles of innovation in education delivery. Am J Pharm Educ. 2009; 73: 154.
10. Fox BI. Information technology and pharmacy education. Am J Pharm Educ. 2011; 75: 86.
11. Stolte SK, Richard C, Rahman A, Kidd RS. Student pharmacists' use and perceived impact of educational technologies. Am J Pharm Educ. 2011; 75: 92.
12. Laal M. Impact of Technology on Lifelong Learning. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 2011; 28: 439-43.
13. Chan ZC. Student peer reviewers' views on teaching innovations and imaginative learning. Nurse Educ Today. 2016; 39: 155-60.
14. Chen T, Hu M. Influence of course design on learning approaches and academic performance in physical therapy students. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 2013; 93: 97-101.
15. Czerkawski BC. Designing deeper learning experiences for online instruction. J Interact Online Learn. 2014; 13: 29-40.
16. Garrison DR, Kanuka H. Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. Internet High Educ. 2004; 7: 95-105.
17. Lawless KA, Pellegrino JW. Professional development in integrating technology into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and answers. Rev Educ Res. 2007; 77: 575-614.
18. Tiwari A, Chan S, Wong E, Wong D, Chui C, Wong A, et al. The effect of problem-based learning on students’ approaches to learning in the context of clinical nursing education. Nurse Educ Today. 2006; 26: 430-8.
19. Nair C, Fisher D. A learning environment study of tertiary classrooms. Annual research forum of the Western Australia Institute for Educational research, Perth, WA; 1999.
20. Trigwell K, Prosser M. Improving the quality of student learning: the influence of learning context and student approaches to learning on learning outcomes. High Educ. 1991; 22: 251-66.
21. Biggs JB. Approaches to the Enhancement of Tertiary Teaching. High Educ Res Dev. 1989; 8: 7-25.
22. Biggs JB, Moore PJ. The process of learning. 3rd ed. New York: Prentice Hall; 1993.
23. Barros R, Monteiro A, Nejmedinne F, Moreira JA. The relationship between students’ approach to learning and lifelong learning. Psychology. 2013; 04: 792-7.
24. Tam M. Promoting deep learning: a conceptual model [online]. 1999 [cited Aug 17, 2018]. Available from: www.ln.edu.hk/tlc/info/lm/lm0599.htm
25. Klug J, Krause N, Schober B, Finsterwald M, Spiel C. How do teachers promote their students' lifelong learning in class? Development and first application of the LLL Interview. Teach Teach Educ. 2014; 37: 119–29.
26. Kirby JR, Knapper C, Lamon P, Egnatoff WJ. Development of a scale to measure lifelong learning. Int J Lifelong Educ 2010; 29: 291-302.
27. Chen JC, McGaughey K, Lord SM. Measuring students' propensity for lifelong learning. 2012 AAEE Conference; December 3-5; Melbourne, Victoria, Australia: Engineers Australia; 2012. p. 617.
28. Finsterwald M, Wagner P, Schober B, Lüftenegger M, Spiel C. Fostering lifelong learning – Evaluation of a teacher education program for professional teachers. Teach Teach Educ. 2013; 29: 144-55.
29. McKauge L, Stupans I, Owen SM, Ryan G, Woulfe J. Building critical reflection skills for lifelong learning in the emergent landscape of a national registration and accreditation scheme. J Pharm Pract. 2011; 24: 235-40.
30. Thailand Board of Investment. Thailand poised to be Asia's medical hub [online]. 2016. [cited Aug 17, 2018]. Available from: www.boi.go.th/upload/conte nt/TIR_MAY_56933.pdf.
31. Johnson JL. Self-authorship in pharmacy education. Am J Pharm Educ. 2013; 77: 1-6.
32. Hair JF, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC. Multivariate data analysis. Pearson Prentice Hall; 2003.
33. Kusalanont P. The Learning Styles of High School Thai and Australian Students: Kasetsart; 2006.
34. Polit DF, Beck CT. Nursing Research: Generating and Assessing Evidence for Nursing Practice: Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008.
35. Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE. Multivariate Data Analysis. 7th ed. New Jersey: Pearson Education; 2006.
36. Muthén LK, Muthén BO. Mplus user’s guide. 7th ed. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén; 2015.
37. Hooper D, Coughlan J, Mullen MR. Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electron J Bus Res Methods. 2008; 6: 53–60.
38. Makmee P. Development of a model of organizational effectiveness measurement for universities in Asean: multilevel structural equation model analysis. Journal of the Researcher Association. 2016; 21: 34-48.
39. Al-Mamary YH, Shamsuddin A, Abdul Hamid NA, Al-Maamari MH. Adoption of management informa tion systems in context of Yemeni organizations: A structural equation modeling approach. J Digit Inform Manag. 2015; 13: 429-44.
40. Hu Lt, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling 1999; 6: 1-55.
41. Chotima M, Blauw J. The influence of materialism on well-being among Thai adolescents. Scholar. 2016; 8: 141.
42. Fackler S, Malmberg L-E. Teachers' self-efficacy in 14 OECD countries: Teacher, student group, school and leadership effects. Teach Teach Educ. 2016; 56: 185-95.
43. Machado LAC, Telles RW, Costa-Silva L, Barreto SM. Psychometric properties of multidimensional health locus of control - a and general self-efficacy scale in civil servants: ELSA-Brasil Musculoskeletal Study (ELSA-Brasil MSK). Braz J Phys Ther 2016; 20: 451-60.
44. Kenny DA. Measuring model fit [online]. 2015 [cited Aug 1, 2019]. Available from: davidakenny.net/cm/ fit.htm.
45. Hinkle DE, Wiersma W, Jurs SG. Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences. 5th ed. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin; 2003.
46. Ozdamli F, Ozdal H. Life-long learning competence perceptions of the teachers and abilities in using information-communication technologies. Procedia - Soc Behav Sci 2015; 182: 718-25.
47. Chen TC, Hu MH. Influence of course design on learning approaches and academic performance in physical therapy students. Procedia - Soc Behav Sci 2013; 93: 97-101.
48. Wanner T, Palmer E. Personalising learning: Exploring student and teacher perceptions about flexible learning and assessment in a flipped university course. Comput Educ. 2015; 88: 354-69.
49. Boyle T, Ravenscroft A. Context and deep learning design. Comput Educ. 2012; 59: 1224-33.
50. Ellis RA, Hughes J, Weyers M, Riding P. University teacher approaches to design and teaching and concepts of learning technologies. Teach Teach Educ. 2009; 25: 109-17.
51. Mongelli A. Lifelong learning and innovation. Ital J Socio Educ 2010; 3: 41-58.