Design and Implementation of Cooperative Learning and Problem-Based Learning in Engineering Karl A. Smith Engineering Education – Purdue University Civil Engineering - University of Minnesota [email protected]http://www.ce.umn.edu/~smith University of Notre Dame Engineering Seminar March 31, 2010
55
Embed
Design and Implementation of Cooperative Learning and Problem- Based Learning in Engineering Karl A. Smith Engineering Education – Purdue University Civil.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Design and Implementation of Cooperative Learning and Problem-
Based Learning in Engineering
Karl A. SmithEngineering Education – Purdue UniversityCivil Engineering - University of Minnesota
– Research• Student engagement – NSSE • Cooperative learning• How People Learn
• Responsibility– Individual course– Program– Accreditation– Other
4
“Throughout the whole enterprise, the core issue, in my view, is the mode of teaching and learning that is practiced. Learning ‘about’ things does not enable students to acquire the abilities and understanding they will need for the twenty-first century. We need new pedagogies of engagement that will turn out the kinds of resourceful, engaged workers and citizens that America now requires.”
Russ Edgerton (reflecting on higher education projects funded by the Pew Memorial Trust)
5
Student Engagement Research Evidence
• Perhaps the strongest conclusion that can be made is the least surprising. Simply put, the greater the student’s involvement or engagement in academic work or in the academic experience of college, the greater his or her level of knowledge acquisition and general cognitive development …(Pascarella and Terenzini, 2005).
• Active and collaborative instruction coupled with various means to encourage student engagement invariably lead to better student learning outcomes irrespective of academic discipline (Kuh et al., 2005, 2007).
See Smith, et.al, 2005 and Fairweather, 2008, Linking Evidence and Promising Practices in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Undergraduate Education - http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/Fairweather_CommissionedPaper.pdf
January 2, 2009—Science, Vol. 323 www.sciencemag.org
Calls for evidence-based teaching practices
MIT & Harvard – Engaged Pedagogy
January 13, 2009—New York Timeshttp://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/us/13physics.html?em
Lee Shulman – MSU Med School – PBL Approach (late 60s – early 70s), President Emeritus of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of College Teaching
Shulman, Lee S. 1999. Taking learning seriously. Change, 31 (4), 11-17.
11
What do we do about these pathologies?
• Activity – Engage learners in meaningful and purposeful activities
• Reflection – Provide opportunities
• Collaboration – Design interaction
• Passion – Connect with things learners care about
Shulman, Lee S. 1999. Taking learning seriously. Change, 31 (4), 11-17.
Lila M. Smith
13
Pedagogies of Engagement
14
The American College Teacher: National Norms for 2007-2008
Methods Used in “All” or “Most”
All – 2005
All – 2008
Assistant - 2008
Cooperative Learning
48 59 66
Group Projects 33 36 61
Grading on a curve
19 17 14
Term/research papers
35 44 47
http://www.heri.ucla.edu/index.php
Reflection and Dialogue
• Individually reflect on Active and Cooperative Learning Successes. Write for about 1 minute– Context? Subject, Year, School– Structure/Procedure? What did you do/experience?– Outcome? Evidence of Success
• Discuss with your neighbor for about 2 minutes– Select Success Story, Comment, Question, etc. that
you would like to present to the whole group if you are randomly selected
16
Active Learning: Cooperation in the College Classroom
• Informal Cooperative Learning Groups
• Formal Cooperative Learning Groups
• Cooperative Base Groups
See Cooperative Learning Handout (CL College-804.doc)
17
Shaping the Future: New Expectations for Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering and Technology – National Science Foundation, 1996
Goal – All students have access to supportive, excellent undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology, and all students learn these subjects by direct experience with the methods and processes of inquiry.
Recommend that SME&T faculty: Believe and affirm that every student can learn, and model good practices that increase learning; starting with the student’s experience, but have high expectations within a supportive climate; and build inquiry, a sense of wonder and the excitement of discovery, plus communication and teamwork, critical thinking, and life-long learning skills into learning experiences.
18
• Here are the Grand Challenges for engineering as determined by a committee of the National Academy of Engineering:
• Make solar energy economical • Provide energy from fusion • Develop carbon sequestration methods • Manage the nitrogen cycle • Provide access to clean water • Restore and improve urban infrastructure • Advance health informatics • Engineer better medicines • Reverse-engineer the brain • Prevent nuclear terror • Secure cyberspace • Enhance virtual reality • Advance personalized learning • Engineer the tools of scientific discovery
19
National Research Council Reports:1. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience,
and School (1999).2. How People Learn: Bridging Research and
Practice (2000).3. Knowing What Students Know: The Science
and Design of Educational Assessment (2001).
4. The Knowledge Economy and Postsecondary Education (2002). Chapter 6 – Creating High-Quality Learning Environments: Guidelines from Research on How People Learn
20
21
22
Designing Learning Environments Based on HPL
(How People Learn)
Resources• Smith, K. A., Douglas, T. C., & Cox, M.
2009. Supportive teaching and learning strategies in STEM education. In R. Baldwin, (Ed.). Improving the climate for undergraduate teaching in STEM fields. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 117, 19-32. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Pellegrino – Rethinking and Redesigning Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment
• Bransford, Vye and Bateman – Creating High Quality Learning Environments
Wiggins, Grant and McTighe, Jay. 1998. Understanding by Design. Alexandria, VA: ASCD
25
It could well be that faculty members of the twenty-first century college or university will find it necessary to set aside their roles as teachers and instead become designers of learning experiences, processes, and environments.
James Duderstadt, 1999 [Nuclear Engineering Professor; Dean, Provost and President of the University of Michigan]
26
Active Learning: Cooperation in the College Classroom
• Informal Cooperative Learning Groups
• Formal Cooperative Learning Groups
• Cooperative Base Groups
See Cooperative Learning Handout (CL College-804.doc)
Cooperative Learning is instruction that involves people working in teams to accomplish a common goal, under conditions that involve both positive interdependence (all members must cooperate to complete the task) and individual and group accountability (each member is accountable for the complete final outcome).
Key Concepts
•Positive Interdependence•Individual and Group Accountability•Face-to-Face Promotive Interaction•Teamwork Skills•Group Processing
3. Session Summary (Minute Paper)1. What was the most useful or meaningful thing you
learned during this session?2. What question(s) remain uppermost in your mind as we
end this session?3. What was the “muddiest” point in this session?
31
Advance Organizer“The most important single factor influencing learning is what the learner already knows. Ascertain this and teach him accordingly.”
David Ausubel - Educational psychology: A cognitive approach, 1968.
32
Quick Thinks
•Reorder the steps•Paraphrase the idea•Correct the error•Support a statement•Select the response
Johnston, S. & Cooper,J. 1997. Quick thinks: Active- thinking in lecture classes and televised instruction. Cooperative learning and college teaching, 8(1), 2-7.
33
Formulate-Share-Listen-Create
Informal Cooperative Learning GroupIntroductory Pair Discussion of a
FOCUS QUESTION
1. Formulate your response to the question individually
2. Share your answer with a partner3. Listen carefully to your partner's answer4. Work together to Create a new answer
through discussion
34
Minute Paper• What was the most useful or meaningful thing
you learned during this session?• What question(s) remain uppermost in your
mind as we end this session?• What was the “muddiest” point in this session?• Give an example or application• Explain in your own words . . .
Angelo, T.A. & Cross, K.P. 1993. Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
35
Session Summary(Minute Paper)
Reflect on the session:
1. Most interesting, valuable, useful thing you learned.
2. Things that helped you learn.
3. Question, comments, suggestions.
4. Pace: Too slow 1 . . . . 5 Too fast5. Relevance: Little 1 . . . 5 Lots6. Instructional Format: Ugh 1 . . . 5 Ah
Q4 – Pace: Too slow 1 . . . . 5 Too fast (3.0)Q5 – Relevance: Little 1 . . . 5 Lots (3.9)Q6 – Format: Ugh 1 . . . 5 Ah (4.1)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Q4 Q5 Q6
1
2
3
4
5
MOT 8221 – Spring 2010 – Session 1 (1/29/10)
37
Q4 – Pace: Too slow 1 . . . . 5 Too fast (3.3)Q5 – Relevance: Little 1 . . . 5 Lots (4.2)Q6 – Format: Ugh 1 . . . 5 Ah (4.4)
0
5
10
15
20
25
Q4 Q5 Q6
1
2
3
4
5
MOT 8221 – Spring 2009 – Session 1
38
Informal CL (Book Ends on a Class Session) with Concept Tests
STEMTECVideo: How Change Happens: Breaking the “Teach as You Were Taught” Cycle – Films for the Humanities & Sciences – www.films.com
HarvardThinking Together & From Questions to Concepts Interactive Teaching in Physics: Derek Bok Center – www.fas.harvard.edu/~bok_cen/
39
The “Hake” Plot of FCI
Pretest (Percent)
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00
ALS
SDI
WP
PI(HU)
ASU(nc)
ASU(c)
HU
WP*
UMn Traditional
XUMn Cooperative Groups
XUMn-CL+PS
Richard Hake (Interactive engagement vs traditional methods) http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/
Traditional (lecture)
Interactive (active/cooperative)
<g> = Concept Inventory Gain/Total
41
42
Physics (Mechanics) Concepts:The Force Concept Inventory (FCI)
• A 30 item multiple choice test to probe student's understanding of basic concepts in mechanics.
• The choice of topics is based on careful thought about what the fundamental issues and concepts are in Newtonian dynamics.
• Uses common speech rather than cueing specific physics principles.
• The distractors (wrong answers) are based on students' common inferences.
Informal CooperativeLearning Groups
Can be used at any timeCan be short term and ad hocMay be used to break up a long lectureProvides an opportunity for students to process material they have been listening to (Cognitive Rehearsal)Are especially effective in large lecturesInclude "book ends" procedureAre not as effective as Formal Cooperative Learning or Cooperative Base Groups
Strategies for Energizing Large
Classes: From Small Groups to
Learning Communities:
Jean MacGregor,James Cooper,
Karl Smith,Pamela Robinson
New Directions for Teaching and Learning,
No. 81, 2000.Jossey- Bass
45
Active Learning: Cooperation in the College Classroom
• Informal Cooperative Learning Groups
• Formal Cooperative Learning Groups
• Cooperative Base Groups
See Cooperative Learning Handout (CL College-804.doc)
Formal Cooperative Learning
Cooperative Learning Research Support Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., & Smith, K.A. 1998. Cooperative learning returns to
college: What evidence is there that it works? Change, 30 (4), 26-35.
• Over 300 Experimental Studies• First study conducted in 1924• High Generalizability• Multiple Outcomes
Outcomes
1. Achievement and retention2. Critical thinking and higher-level
reasoning3. Differentiated views of others4. Accurate understanding of others'
perspectives5. Liking for classmates and teacher6. Liking for subject areas7. Teamwork skills
January 2005 March 2007
Small-Group Learning: Meta-analysis
Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. 1999. Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-
analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69(1), 21-52.
Small-group (predominantly cooperative) learning in postsecondary science, mathematics, engineering, and technology (SMET). 383 reports from 1980 or later, 39 of which met the rigorous inclusion criteria for meta-analysis.
The main effect of small-group learning on achievement, persistence, and attitudes among undergraduates in SMET was significant and positive. Mean effect sizes for achievement, persistence, and attitudes were 0.51, 0.46, and 0.55, respectively.