Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39374166›Full record

ArticleCBE life sciences education2024

Exploring Variations in STEM Instructors' Approaches to Office Hours.

Desiree Forsythe, Rebecca M Green, Jeremy L Hsu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in CBE life sciences education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Desiree ForsytheSchmid College of Science and Technology, Chapman University, Orange, CA 92866.
Rebecca M GreenSchmid College of Science and Technology, Chapman University, Orange, CA 92866.
Jeremy L HsuSchmid College of Science and Technology, Chapman University, Orange, CA 92866.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Office hours are an integral component of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) courses at nearly all colleges and universities. Despite their ubiquity as a support mechanism, there has only been limited work examining how instructors approach office hours and what shapes these approaches. Here, we conduct a phenomenographic study to investigate how instructors of STEM courses experience office hours and how these experiences may impact their approaches to promoting and managing office hours. We identified variations in how instructors promoted office hours, the modality of office hours (i.e., when and where office hours were held), and how instructors facilitated learning during office hours. These variations spanned from student-centric (strategies instructors use with students' interest in mind, e.g., wanting to increase student learning, accessibility, comfort, etc.) to instructor-centric (strategies the instructors use with their own self-interest in mind, e.g., saving time and/or bandwidth, personal needs, comfort, etc.). Additionally, we identify several challenges and barriers, including a lack of formal training or opportunities to discuss office hour approaches with other faculty, and conclude with general recommendations for instructors and administrators in STEM departments for engaging and supporting students during office hours.

Indexed as

EngineeringFacultyMathematicsScienceStudentsTechnologyHumansLearningUniversities

Identifiers

PMID39374166
PMCPMC11659853

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.