首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Journal of Animal Science >427 Creating experiential learning through roundtable discussion and debate exercises in an animals and society course
【2h】

427 Creating experiential learning through roundtable discussion and debate exercises in an animals and society course

机译:427通过圆桌会议讨论和辩论练习在动物和社会课程中创造体验

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

An Animals and Society (AS) course has been in place departmentally for over 20 years. Similar courses and resource materials across academia are found in liberal arts arenas and may have titles of Anthrozoology, Human Animal Studies or Human Animal Interactions, among others. An examination of texts and learning resources for these classes reveal substantial depth and breadth and pervasiveness of the biases toward animal activism and anti-animal agriculture sentiments. Collectively, these indicators support the need for pedagogy to deeply investigate and deliberate ethical aspects of topics within AS courses. In our present course design, students participate in an in-class discussion activity, designed to simulate a well-informed town hall meeting where discussion and active participation are expected. Roundtable Discussion Panel exercises (RTDPs) and debates around a pre-determined topic were evaluated on exchange of ideas, information, cooperativity and solutioning using rubrics. A 20 question survey was administered to ascertain students’ perceived value and impact of the Debate vs RTDP exercises for dimensions of experiential learning. Participants built basic discussion skills, developed keen understanding of important animal issues and explored how groups can pool knowledge to reach consensus and solve problems. Participants were more engaged productive thinkers rather than emotional persuaders and assisted the larger group in creating ways to implement solutions discussed and highlighted organizational involvement in those actions/steps. Sixty-four percent preferred debate and 68% found it most challenging yet learned most from the RTDP. For debates, students saw themselves as cooperators but in panels, a majority viewed themselves as leaders. Well-designed RTDP’s and debates are a valuable pedagogy for animals and society courses.
机译:动物和社会(AS)课程已经部门已经到20多年。在自由艺术竞技场中发现了跨学术界的类似课程和资源材料,并且可能具有一种单曲学,人类动物研究或人类动物互动的标题。对这些课程的文本和学习资源的审查揭示了对动物活动和抗动动物农业情绪的大量深度和广度和普遍性。总的来说,这些指标支持有必要教育学,深入调查和刻意课程内部主题的道德方面。在我们当前的课程设计中,学生参加了一项课堂讨论活动,旨在模拟预计讨论和积极参与的知情城镇厅会议。围绕思想,信息,合作和使用rubrics解决方案的课程讨论面板练习(RTDPS)和涉及预先确定主题的辩论。管理了20个问题,以确定学生的辩论价值和对实验学习方面的辩论效果的感知价值和影响。与会者建立了基本的讨论技巧,开发了对重要的动物问题的热衷于理解,并探索了群体如何汇集知识,以达成共识并解决问题。参与者更加富有成效的思想家,而不是情绪说服者,并协助更大的团队创造实施解决方案的方法,并强调在这些行动/步骤中突出的组织参与。六十四个优选辩论和68%的人发现最具挑战性最具挑战性,但最多来自RTDP。对于辩论,学生认为自己是合作者,但在面板中,大多数人认为自己是领导者。精心设计的RTDP和辩论是动物和社会课程的有价值的教育学。

著录项

  • 期刊名称 Journal of Animal Science
  • 作者

    Donald R Mulvaney;

  • 作者单位
  • 年(卷),期 2019(97),Suppl 3
  • 年度 2019
  • 页码 181
  • 总页数 1
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种
  • 中图分类 动物学;
  • 关键词

    机译:教学;动物和社会;教育学;

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号