Session T2A ADOPTION OF ACTIVE LEARNING IN A LECTURE-BASED ENGINEERING CLASS (original) (raw)
Related papers
Adoption of active learning in a lecture-based engineering class
2002
Three years ago, the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics at MIT expanded its repertoire of active learning strategies and assessment tools with the introduction of muddiest-point-in-the-lecture cards, electronic response systems, concept tests, peer coaching, course web pages, and web-based course evaluations. This paper focuses on the change process of integrating these active learning strategies into a traditional lecture-based multidisciplinary course, called Unified Engineering. The description of the evolution of active learning in Unified Engineering is intended to underscore the motivation and incentives required for bringing about the change, and the support needed for sustaining and disseminating active learning approaches among the instructors.
Active Learning in Engineering Education: a (re)introduction
European Journal of Engineering Education, 2016
The informal network 'Active Learning in Engineering Education' (ALE) has been promoting Active Learning since 2001. ALE creates opportunity for practitioners and researchers of engineering education to collaboratively learn how to foster learning of engineering students. The activities in ALE are centred on the vision that learners construct their knowledge based on meaningful activities and knowledge. In 2014, the steering committee of the ALE network reinforced the need to discuss the meaning of Active Learning and that was the base for this proposal for a special issue. More than 40 submissions were reviewed by the European Journal of Engineering Education community and this theme issue ended up with eight contributions, which are different both in their research and Active Learning approaches. These different Active Learning approaches are aligned with the different approaches that can be increasingly found in indexed journals.
Closing the Loop on Active Learning: A Sophomore-level Course Experience
2006 GSW Proceedings
The authors were intrigued by the different ways and methods advocated in the engineering education literature to promote active learning in a class over passive learning. The two authors were in charge of teaching a sophomore-level course in design and manufacturing at the University of New Mexico. They have combined (1) group work, (2) student teaching and presentations, (3) pop quizzes, (4) peer rating of team members and non-team members, and (5) problem-based learning or PBL in an effort to maximize the active learning involved in the class. All of the aforementioned methods have been tried, typically individually, in previous educational studies and were recommended for teachers. An exception is the peer rating of nonteam members, which is presented for the first time here and is conducted via a student-filled form provided in the Appendix. The educational experience, along with statistical data, from this unique combination is discussed herein along with any recommendations or lessons learned.
ACTIVE LEARNING TECHNIQUES IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION
The current developments in technology and ideas have given entirely new dimensions to the field of research and education. New delivery methods are proposed which is an added feature to the engineering education. Particularly, more importance is given to new teaching practices such as Information and Communication Technologies (ICT). It is vital to adopt the new ICT methods which lead to emergence of novel structure and mode of education. The flipped classroom, think pair share and peer instruction are the latest pedagogical methods which gives students to learn the course. This involves students to watch video lectures outside the classroom and solve the problems at home. Students are engaged in group discussions in the classroom. These are the active learning methods where in student is involved diversely to learn the course. This paper gives a comprehensive study of past and present researches which is going on with flipped class room, thinks pair share activity and peer instruction.
Empowering Engineering College Staff to Adopt Active Learning Methods
Journal of Science Education and Technology, 2008
There is a growing consensus that traditional instruction in basic science courses, in institutions of higher learning, do not lead to the desired results. Most of the students who complete these courses do not gain deep knowledge about the basic concepts and develop a negative approach to the sciences. In order to deal with this problem, a variety of methods have been proposed and implemented, during the last decade, which focus on the ''active learning'' of the participating students. We found that the methods developed in MIT and NCSU were fruitful and we adopted their approach. Despite research-based evidence of the success of these methods, they are often met by the resistance of the academic staff. This article describes how one institution of higher learning organized itself to introduce significant changes into its introductory science courses, as well as the stages teachers undergo, as they adopt innovative teaching methods. In the article, we adopt the Rogers model of the innovative-decision process, which we used to evaluate the degree of innovation adoption by seven members of the academic staff. An analysis of interview and observation data showed that four factors were identified which influence the degree innovation adoption: (1) teacher readiness to seriously learn the theoretical background of ''active learning''; (2) the development of an appropriate local model, customized to the beliefs of the academic staff; (3) teacher expertise in information technologies, and (4) the teachersÕ design of creative solutions to problems that arose during their teaching.
2016
approved: ______________________________________________________ Milo D. Koretsky This thesis focuses on active learning through four different studies that include metacognitive and cognitive aspects of learning designs to support active learning and a contextual analysis of the implementation of teaching tools used in active learning. The first three investigate important elements of active learning whereas the fourth study explores how those elements fit together. The first two studies evaluate how student responses vary based on different reflection prompts. The third study examines student thinking processes as they work through interactive simulations. Through a comparative case study, the fourth study analyzes how two different instructors implement similar active teaching tools into their respective courses. ©Copyright by Jessie Keeler May 11, 2016 All Rights Reserved Reflection and Dissection in Engineering Education: Exploring Critical Elements of Active Learning and their...
Active Learning in Engineering Education: Experiences in Asia and Europe
2020
Active learning aims to build knowledge and skills by doing going beyond traditional, passive classroom instruction. The advantages of active learning are many. It facilitates the retention of new knowledge. It goes beyond the goals of memorizing and understanding concepts, building student capacity on analyzing new information, applying it in practice, and explaining it to others. It builds high order thinking skills that are transferable to the real world. Despite the advantages of active learning it, is not widely applied in practice. This is particularly the case in South East Asian countries. Lack of or inadequacy of physical infrastructures is a significant obstacle. Even when labs do exist, the equipment is outdated and limited in the software that it can support. There is a lack of openly available software applications that can be deployed in educational contexts as complementary learning tools. Limited instructor training on how to exploit IT and to combine it with emerging learning pedagogies further discourages the deployment of active approaches in the classroom. This work presents an educational intervention that aims to introduce active learning as a strategic educational approach in engineering higher education in Europe and Asia. The educational intervention has a vertical design and aims to address the obstacles that inhibit the wide spread adoption of active learning. The intervention includes the development of digital active learning labs at 12 universities in Asian countries. It further involves the development of a digital active learning platform that acts as a repository of active learning activities based on digital applications such as learning games and simulations accompanied with guidelines for educators on how to best integrate them in the classroom. And finally, it includes instructor training on active learning concepts as well as the use of the physical labs in educational contexts. Instructor training takes place at the individual universities through face-to-face training sessions and through on-line webinars. Experiences from the deployment of the proposed intervention demonstrate that when adequately supported through infrastructure and training the introduction of digitally supported active learning practices contributes to the development of industry demanded skills among students while it builds instructor capacity on innovative learning design.
2010
The Student-Centered Activities for Large Enrollment Undergraduate Programs (SCALE-UP) approach to instructional design was adapted with the goal of delivering more effective statics, dynamics and multivariate calculus instruction and integrated course curricula. Inquiry-based learning exercises were designed, incorporating material from statics and dynamics into multivariable calculus, and vice-versa, as well as integrating statics and dynamics into one course. The effectiveness of the revised course designs and activities were assessed using a mixed method approach. Student performance in these courses and in follow-on courses was used to measure improvements in concept retention. Conceptual tests (Statics and Dynamics Concept Inventories) were administered before and after semesters, and average normalized gains were compared with those for students in traditional learning environments.
Lessons Learned: Integrating Active Learning into Undergraduate Engineering Courses
2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access Proceedings
Antonio. He earned his doctorate in Education in a dual-degree program between the University of Padua and The University of Tennessee. He also holds a doctorate in Languages, Cultures, and Societies from Ca' Foscari University of Venice. His research interests include new literacies, youth cultures, games and learning, music technology, and multimodality. He presented his work at national and international conferences such as GLS (Games + Learning + Society) and G4C (Games for Change). He is the author of the book La Quotidianità dell'Assurdo (The Everyday Absurd, Archetipolibri, Bologna, 2010).
Education Sciences, 2019
Active learning has gained growing political, instructional, and research interest. However, the definitions of active learning are wide. The learning outcomes related to it have been mostly positive but the measurement methods are not without problems. This review provides an overview of active learning, especially in the context of engineering higher education, by answering two research questions: (1) How is the concept of active learning defined and justified in engineering higher education research? (2) What are the learning outcomes connected to active learning and how is learning measured in engineering higher education research? Sixty-six empirical articles were analyzed inductively with qualitative content analysis. The analysis showed that active learning was defined in various ways, and in some articles, it was not defined at all. In addition, justification (theoretical or empirical) for the use of active learning was seldomly reported. Finally, the indicators used to measure the impact of active learning on students' learning outcomes were mostly based on students' self-report data and focused on course specific development in subject-related knowledge. More thorough descriptions and theoretical justifications, as well as the consideration of learning outcomes with appropriate research methods, could reinforce the transparency of empirical interventions and the application of active learning.