The Experts below are selected from a list of 193731 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Alison Robinson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
talking science the research evidence on the use of small Group Discussions in science teaching
International Journal of Science Education, 2010Co-Authors: Judith Bennett, Sylvia Hogarth, Fred Lubben, Bob Campbell, Alison RobinsonAbstract:This paper reports the findings of two systematic reviews of the use and effects of small Group Discussions in high school science teaching. Ninety‐four studies were included in an overview (systematic map) of work in the area, and 24 studies formed the basis of the in‐depth reviews. The reviews indicate that there is considerable diversity in the topics used to promote small Group Discussions. They also demonstrate that students often struggle to formulate and express coherent arguments, and demonstrate a low level of engagement with tasks. The reviews suggest that Groups function more purposefully, and understanding improves most, when specifically constituted such that differing views are represented, when some form of training is provided for students on effective Group work, and when help in structuring Discussions is provided in the form of “cues”. Single‐sex Groups function more purposefully than mixed‐sex Groups, though improvements in understanding are independent of gender composition of Groups....
-
Talking science: the research evidence on the use of small-Group Discussions in science teaching
International Journal of Science Education, 2009Co-Authors: Judith Bennett, Sylvia Hogarth, Fred Lubben, Bob Campbell, Alison RobinsonAbstract:This paper reports the findings of two systematic reviews of the use and effects of small-Group Discussions in high school science teaching. 94 studies were included in an overview (systematic map) of work in the area, and 24 studies formed the basis of the in-depth reviews. The reviews indicate that there is considerable diversity in the topics used to promote small-Group Discussions. They also demonstrate that students often struggle to formulate and express coherent arguments, and demonstrate a low level of engagement with tasks. The reviews suggest that Groups function more purposefully, and understanding improves most, when specifically constituted such that differing views are represented, when some form of training is provided for students on effective Group work, and when help in structuring Discussions is provided in the form of ‘cues'. Single sex Groups function more purposefully than mixed sex Groups, though improvements in understanding are independent of gender composition of Groups. Finally, the reviews demonstrate very clearly that, for small-Group Discussions to be effective, teachers and students need to be given explicit teaching in the skills associated with the development of arguments and the characteristics associated with effective Group Discussions. In addition to the substantive findings, the paper also reports on key features of the methods employed to gather and analyse data. Of particular note are the two contrasting approaches to data analysis, one adopting a grounded theory approach and the other drawing on established methods of discourse analysis.
Chris C H De Jager - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a comparison of techniques used to collect informed public opinions about ccs opinion quality after focus Group Discussions versus information choice questionnaires
International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2013Co-Authors: Emma Ter Mors, Bart W Terwel, Dancker D L Daamen, David Reiner, Diana Schumann, Sorin Anghel, Ioanna Boulouta, Diana Cismaru, Carmencita Constantin, Chris C H De JagerAbstract:Both focus Group Discussions and information-choice questionnaires (ICQs) have previously been used to examine informed public opinions about carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS). This paper presents an extensive experimental study to systematically examine and compare the quality of opinions created by these two research techniques. Depending on experimental condition, participants either participated in a focus Group meeting or completed an ICQ. In both conditions participants received identical factual information about two specific CCS options. After having processed the information, they indicated their overall opinion about each CCS option. The quality of these opinions was determined by looking at three outcome-oriented indicators of opinion quality: consistency, stability, and confidence. Results for all three indicators showed that ICQs yielded higher-quality opinions than focus Groups, but also that focus Groups did not perform poor in this regard. Implications for the choice between focus Group Discussions and ICQs are discussed.
-
scrutinizing the impact of ccs communication on opinion quality focus Group Discussions versus information choice questionnaires results from experimental research in six countries
Energy Procedia, 2011Co-Authors: Dancker D L Daamen, Emma Ter Mors, Bart W Terwel, David Reiner, Diana Schumann, Sorin Anghel, Ioanna Boulouta, Diana Cismaru, Carmencita Constantin, Chris C H De JagerAbstract:Previous research has shown that public knowledge and awareness of carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) is very limited. As a result, traditional surveys designed to collect public opinions about CCS do in fact assess so-called pseudo opinions. Pseudo-opinions are of very low quality because they are mostly unstable and inconsistent. Therefore, they are not predictive for actual and future public support for or opposition against CCS. As compared to pseudo opinions, opinions expressed after the public has been provided with factual information about CCS are likely to be of higher quality. Focus Group Discussions and Information-Choice Questionnaires (ICQs) are two research techniques frequently used in the CCS literature that aim to collect such informed public opinions. In this study, we examined which of these two research technique leads to the highest quality opinions (i.e., to opinions that are consistent, stable, and that people are confident about). Our results showed that ICQs yielded higher-quality opinions than focus Group Discussions. Practical implications and recommendations are discussed.
Benedicte Deforche - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
determinants of physical activity and sedentary behaviour in university students a qualitative study using focus Group Discussions
BMC Public Health, 2015Co-Authors: Tom Deliens, Ilse De Bourdeaudhuij, Benedicte Deforche, Peter ClarysAbstract:College or university is a critical period regarding unhealthy changes in energy related behaviours in students. The first objective of this explorative study was to identify determinants of physical activity and sedentary behaviour in Belgian university students. Secondly, we aimed to collect ideas and recommendations to increase physical activity and decrease sedentary behaviours in university students. Using a semi-structured question guide, seven focus Group Discussions were conducted consisting of 17 male and 29 female university students from a variety of study disciplines, with a mean age of 20.7 ± 1.6 yrs. Using Nvivo9, an inductive thematic approach was used for data analysis. Students reported that both physical and sedentary activities were influenced by individual factors (e.g. perceived enjoyment, self-discipline, time and convenience), their social networks (e.g. (lack of) parental control, modelling, social support), physical environment (e.g. availability and accessibility, travel time/distance, prices), and macro environment (e.g. media and advertising). Furthermore, the relationships between determinants and university students’ physical activity and sedentary behaviour seemed to be moderated by university characteristics, such as residency, university lifestyle, exams and academic pressure. Recommendations for future physical activity interventions include improving information strategies regarding on-campus sports activities, cheaper and/or more flexible sports subscriptions and formulas, including ‘sports time’ into the curricula, and providing university bicycles around campus. Students also believed that increasing students’ physical activity might decrease their sedentary behaviour at the same time. The recommendations and ideas discussed in this study may facilitate the development of effective and tailored (multilevel) intervention programs aiming to increase physical activity and decrease sedentary behaviours in university students.
-
determinants of eating behaviour in university students a qualitative study using focus Group Discussions
BMC Public Health, 2014Co-Authors: Tom Deliens, Peter Clarys, Ilse De Bourdeaudhuij, Benedicte DeforcheAbstract:College or university is a critical period regarding unhealthy changes in eating behaviours in students. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to explore which factors influence Belgian (European) university students’ eating behaviour, using a qualitative research design. Furthermore, we aimed to collect ideas and recommendations in order to facilitate the development of effective and tailored intervention programs aiming to improve healthy eating behaviours in university students. Using a semi-structured question guide, five focus Group Discussions have been conducted consisting of 14 male and 21 female university students from a variety of study disciplines, with a mean age of 20.6 ± 1.7 yrs. Using Nvivo9, an inductive thematic approach was used for data analysis. After the transition from secondary school to university, when independency increases, students are continuously challenged to make healthful food choices. Students reported to be influenced by individual factors (e.g. taste preferences, self-discipline, time and convenience), their social networks (e.g. (lack of) parental control, friends and peers), physical environment (e.g. availability and accessibility, appeal and prices of food products), and macro environment (e.g. media and advertising). Furthermore, the relationships between determinants and university students’ eating behaviour seemed to be moderated by university characteristics, such as residency, student societies, university lifestyle and exams. Recommendations for university administrators and researchers include providing information and advice to enhance healthy food choices and preparation (e.g. via social media), enhancing self-discipline and self-control, developing time management skills, enhancing social support, and modifying the subjective as well as the objective campus food environment by e.g. making healthy foods price-beneficial and by providing vending machines with more healthy products. This is the first European study examining perceived determinants of eating behaviour in university students and collecting ideas and recommendations for healthy eating interventions in a university specific setting. University characteristics (residency, exams, etc.) influence the relationships between individual as well as social environmental determinants and university students’ eating behaviour, and should therefore be taken into account when designing effective and tailored multilevel intervention programs aiming to improve healthy eating behaviours in university students.
Judith Bennett - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
talking science the research evidence on the use of small Group Discussions in science teaching
International Journal of Science Education, 2010Co-Authors: Judith Bennett, Sylvia Hogarth, Fred Lubben, Bob Campbell, Alison RobinsonAbstract:This paper reports the findings of two systematic reviews of the use and effects of small Group Discussions in high school science teaching. Ninety‐four studies were included in an overview (systematic map) of work in the area, and 24 studies formed the basis of the in‐depth reviews. The reviews indicate that there is considerable diversity in the topics used to promote small Group Discussions. They also demonstrate that students often struggle to formulate and express coherent arguments, and demonstrate a low level of engagement with tasks. The reviews suggest that Groups function more purposefully, and understanding improves most, when specifically constituted such that differing views are represented, when some form of training is provided for students on effective Group work, and when help in structuring Discussions is provided in the form of “cues”. Single‐sex Groups function more purposefully than mixed‐sex Groups, though improvements in understanding are independent of gender composition of Groups....
-
Talking science: the research evidence on the use of small-Group Discussions in science teaching
International Journal of Science Education, 2009Co-Authors: Judith Bennett, Sylvia Hogarth, Fred Lubben, Bob Campbell, Alison RobinsonAbstract:This paper reports the findings of two systematic reviews of the use and effects of small-Group Discussions in high school science teaching. 94 studies were included in an overview (systematic map) of work in the area, and 24 studies formed the basis of the in-depth reviews. The reviews indicate that there is considerable diversity in the topics used to promote small-Group Discussions. They also demonstrate that students often struggle to formulate and express coherent arguments, and demonstrate a low level of engagement with tasks. The reviews suggest that Groups function more purposefully, and understanding improves most, when specifically constituted such that differing views are represented, when some form of training is provided for students on effective Group work, and when help in structuring Discussions is provided in the form of ‘cues'. Single sex Groups function more purposefully than mixed sex Groups, though improvements in understanding are independent of gender composition of Groups. Finally, the reviews demonstrate very clearly that, for small-Group Discussions to be effective, teachers and students need to be given explicit teaching in the skills associated with the development of arguments and the characteristics associated with effective Group Discussions. In addition to the substantive findings, the paper also reports on key features of the methods employed to gather and analyse data. Of particular note are the two contrasting approaches to data analysis, one adopting a grounded theory approach and the other drawing on established methods of discourse analysis.
Dancker D L Daamen - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a comparison of techniques used to collect informed public opinions about ccs opinion quality after focus Group Discussions versus information choice questionnaires
International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2013Co-Authors: Emma Ter Mors, Bart W Terwel, Dancker D L Daamen, David Reiner, Diana Schumann, Sorin Anghel, Ioanna Boulouta, Diana Cismaru, Carmencita Constantin, Chris C H De JagerAbstract:Both focus Group Discussions and information-choice questionnaires (ICQs) have previously been used to examine informed public opinions about carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS). This paper presents an extensive experimental study to systematically examine and compare the quality of opinions created by these two research techniques. Depending on experimental condition, participants either participated in a focus Group meeting or completed an ICQ. In both conditions participants received identical factual information about two specific CCS options. After having processed the information, they indicated their overall opinion about each CCS option. The quality of these opinions was determined by looking at three outcome-oriented indicators of opinion quality: consistency, stability, and confidence. Results for all three indicators showed that ICQs yielded higher-quality opinions than focus Groups, but also that focus Groups did not perform poor in this regard. Implications for the choice between focus Group Discussions and ICQs are discussed.
-
scrutinizing the impact of ccs communication on opinion quality focus Group Discussions versus information choice questionnaires results from experimental research in six countries
Energy Procedia, 2011Co-Authors: Dancker D L Daamen, Emma Ter Mors, Bart W Terwel, David Reiner, Diana Schumann, Sorin Anghel, Ioanna Boulouta, Diana Cismaru, Carmencita Constantin, Chris C H De JagerAbstract:Previous research has shown that public knowledge and awareness of carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) is very limited. As a result, traditional surveys designed to collect public opinions about CCS do in fact assess so-called pseudo opinions. Pseudo-opinions are of very low quality because they are mostly unstable and inconsistent. Therefore, they are not predictive for actual and future public support for or opposition against CCS. As compared to pseudo opinions, opinions expressed after the public has been provided with factual information about CCS are likely to be of higher quality. Focus Group Discussions and Information-Choice Questionnaires (ICQs) are two research techniques frequently used in the CCS literature that aim to collect such informed public opinions. In this study, we examined which of these two research technique leads to the highest quality opinions (i.e., to opinions that are consistent, stable, and that people are confident about). Our results showed that ICQs yielded higher-quality opinions than focus Group Discussions. Practical implications and recommendations are discussed.
