144 Chapter 7 (10,11,15,30–35). We observed that students engaged and disengaged multiple times during a two-hour class (3). Students reported that they needed their teacher to stimulate, maintain, and regulate their engagement. In our study, we identified how teachers can make use of the spirals of engagement for this purpose. Such a spiral could start from any of the student engagement components (i.e., cognitive, behavioral, and emotional), opening up a wide range of opportunities to enhance engagement. However, students were also observed to spiral into disengagement. Insights from the expert teachers highlighted the importance of continuous observation and analysis of their students (29). These experts were aware of the dynamic nature of student engagement and the frequent occurrence of student disengagement. Consequently, by observing and analyzing, teachers were able to quickly see students disengage and think of ways to re-engage them. The ability to re-engage students during an interaction requires that teachers accurately assess when students disengage and possess appropriate strategies to address such situations. However, distinguishing engagement from disengagement proved difficult. Additionally, addressing student disengagement demanded context- and interpersonal sensitivity, as an inconsiderate approach could increase disengagement. Expert teachers used their knowledge of students to identify instances and causes of disengagement. Furthermore, these teachers took on a relational approach to student disengagement. In instances of repeated disengagement, they initiated a conversation with students to understand the underlying reasons for their disengagement, because they experienced there usually were. This understanding facilitated making agreements with students on how to proceed, thereby re-engaging them in a manner that considered the specific context and circumstances. When inquiring how the teachers of the fourth study became experts in student engagement, they pointed toward faculty development initiatives as a valuable resource for acquiring knowledge about active learning strategies. However, they noted that these initiatives typically provided general strategies. After participating in faculty development, the teachers had to reflect on how to apply these strategies, to ensure that strategies aligned with their educational beliefs and competencies, were suitable for specific student groups, and fit within the constraints of the course they were teaching. Thus, from learning about ‘what might work’, they had to ‘make it work for themselves’. This prompted teachers to conduct small-scale ‘experiments’ to ascertain the effectiveness and appropriateness of a strategy in their context and to gain experience using that strategy. The process of applying strategies in a different context than where they were learned is called ‘transfer’, a major challenge in faculty development (35,36). In our fifth and final study, we shifted our focus from understanding (through the first four studies) to applying. We specifically concentrated on the supporting role that faculty development can play in the implementation of active learning. Therefore, we set out to discover how to stimulate the transfer of active learning strategies to participants’ teaching practices. We designed, implemented, and evaluated a training for new medical teachers, employing principles of
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw