Integrated Course Design for Outcomes Based Education (OBE) Ruth A. Streveler & Karl A. Smith School of Engineering Education Purdue University Universiti Teknologi Malaysia May 2010
Workshop Layout • Welcome & Overview • Integrated Course Design (CAP Model) – Content – Assessment – Pedagogy (Pellegrino) • Backward Design – Understanding by Design (Wiggins and Mc. Tighe) • Integrated Course Design (Fink) • Learning Objectives – Taxonomies • Pedagogies of Engagement – Active and Cooperative Learning 2
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] 3
Key Resource http: //www. skillscommission. org/commissioned. htm 4
Some Important Principles About Learning and Understanding The first important principle about how people learn is that students come to the classroom with preconceptions about how the world works which include beliefs and prior knowledge acquired through various experiences. The second important principle about how people learn is that to develop competence in an area of inquiry, students must: (a) have a deep foundation of factual knowledge, (b) understand facts and ideas in the context of a conceptual framework, and (c) organize knowledge in ways that facilitate retrieval and application. A third critical idea about how people learn is that a “metacognitive” approach to instruction can help students learn to take control of their own learning by defining learning goals and monitoring their progress in achieving them. Jim Pellegrino (2006) – Rethinking and redesigning curriculum, instruction and assessment: What contemporary research and theory suggests. http: //www. skillscommission. org/commissioned. htm 5
Workshop Learning Goal • Participants will understand Content. Assessment-Pedagogy Integrated Design (backward design), and how curriculum, assessment, and instruction should be aligned for significant learning in STEM courses. • Participants will understand that instructional design evolves backward from clear goals and is aligned across all three stages of backward design. 6
Workshop Objectives Participants will be able to: • Apply the principles of backward design in developing a course. • Describe and distinguish two approaches to instructional design that incorporate backward design. – Understanding by Design (Wiggins and Mc. Tighe) – Integrated Course Design (Fink) • Understand the concept of alignment. • Develop learning goals and objectives based on Bloom’s Taxonomy. 7
Integrated Course Design Model • Pellegrino, J. (2006). Curriculum-Instruction-Assessment Triad – http: //www. skillscommission. org/commissioned. htm • Understanding By Design - Backward Design Approach – Course, Class Session, and Learning Module Design: From Objectives and Evidence to Instruction (Wiggins & Mc. Tighe, 1998 and Bransford, Vye & Bateman, 2002) • Fink. L. D. 2003. Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to designing. Jossey-Bass – Self Directed Guide: http: //www. deefinkandassociates. com/Guideto. Course. Design. Aug 05. pdf 8
Reflection and Dialogue • Consider a course you recently taught (or are planning to teach). – Write a description of how you developed this course. – What was your approach to instructional design? • What are the strengths of this approach? • What are the weaknesses of this approach? • Discuss with your neighbor for about 3 minutes
Common Instructional Design Approach Choose Text Identify Chapters Covered Develop Lectures Create Exams
Workshop Layout • Welcome & Overview • Integrated Course Design (CAP Model) – Content – Assessment – Pedagogy (Pellegrino) • Backward Design – Understanding by Design (Wiggins and Mc. Tighe) • Integrated Course Design (Fink) • Learning Objectives – Taxonomies • Pedagogies of Engagement – Active and Cooperative Learning
Backward Design Approach Wiggins & Mc. Tighe Stage 1. Identify Desired Results • Enduring understanding • Important to know and do • Worth being familiar with Stage 2. Determine Acceptable Evidence Stage 3. Plan Learning Experiences and Instruction From: Wiggins, Grant and Mc. Tighe, Jay. 1998. Understanding by Design. Alexandria, VA: ASCD 12
3 Stages of Backward Design Identify the Desired Results Determine Acceptable Evidence Plan Learning Experiences Are the desired results, assessments, and learning activities ALIGNED?
3 Stages of Backward Design Identify the Desired Results What should students know, understand, and be able to do? Determine Acceptable Evidence Plan Learning Experiences Are the desired results, assessments, and learning activities ALIGNED?
3 Stages of Backward Design Identify the Desired Results Determine Acceptable Evidence Plan Learning Experiences How will we know if the students have achieved the desired results? What will be accepted as evidence of student understanding and proficiency? Are the desired results, assessments, and learning activities ALIGNED?
3 Stages of Backward Design Identify the Desired Results Determine Acceptable Evidence Plan Learning Experiences What activities will equip students with the needed knowledge and skills? What materials and resources will be useful? Are the desired results, assessments, and learning activities ALIGNED?
Backward Design vs. Experimental Design Identify the Desired Results Develop Hypothesis Determine Acceptable Evidence Plan Learning Experiences Are the desired results, assessments, and learning activities ALIGNED? Plan Experiments Do the experiments address the hypothesis?
and Think Revisit your description of instructional design. How does your approach compare with backward design? What are the similarities? What are the differences?
Problems with Traditional Design Hands-on without Minds-on • Activity oriented • Engaging • Lack explicit focus Coverage • How many chapters will be covered? • Which pages will we be covered? • What’s the point? • What’s the big idea? • What does this help us understand or be able to do? • Why should we learn this?
Understanding by Design (Ub. D) focuses on BIG IDEAS.
Understanding Big Ideas To understand a topic or subject is to use knowledge in sophisticated, flexible ways. Knowledge and skill are necessary elements of understanding, but they are not synonymous with understanding. Matters of understanding require more: Students need to make conscious sense and apt use of the knowledge they are learning and the principles underlying it. -Understanding by Design Wiggins and Mc. Tighe (1998)
Key Resource http: //books. google. com/books? id=N 2 Ef. Kly. UN 4 QC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v 2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false 22
6 Facets of Understanding • • • Explanation Interpretation Application Perspective Empathy Self. Knowledge Ub. D is a backward design process used to achieve this enduring understanding.
Identify the Desired Results Determine Acceptable Evidence Plan Learning Experiences
G: What is the overall goal of the unit or topic? U: What enduring understanding about big ideas should the students gain?
The Understanding by Design Handbook, Chapter 4: Module 4: Identifying Enduring Understandings
Backward Design Stage 1. Identify Desired Results Filter 1. To what extent does the idea, topic, or process represent a big idea or having enduring value beyond the classroom? Filter 2. To what extent does the idea, topic, or process reside at the heart of the discipline? Filter 3. To what extent does the idea, topic, or process require uncoverage? Filter 4. To what extent does the idea, topic, or process offer potential for engaging students?
Ub. D Filters for Curricular Priorities • Are the topics enduring and transferable big ideas having value beyond the classroom? • Are the topics big ideas and core processes at the heart of the discipline? • Are the topics abstract, counterintuitive, often misunderstood, or easily misunderstood ideas requiring coverage? • Are the topics big ideas embedded in facts, skills and activities? Understanding by Design, pp. 10 -11
G: What is the overall goal of the unit or topic? U: What enduring understanding about big ideas should the students gain? Q: What questions will frame teaching and learning? K, S: What will students know and be able to do (skills)?
Essential Questions • Framed to provoke and sustain interest. • Recur naturally. • Address conceptual foundations of a discipline. • Raise other important questions. • Have no one obvious right answer but serve as a doorway into focused discussion, inquiry, and research.
Identify the Desired Results Determine Acceptable Evidence Plan Learning Experiences
T: What are key performance tasks that would indicate understanding? OE: What other evidence will be collected to assess learning and understanding?
Ub. D Authentic Assessment: GRASPS • Goal: What is goal of the performance task? • Role: What is the role of the students? • Audience: Who is the target audience for the finished product? • Situation: What is the situation or context? • Performance (or Product): What will be performed or produced? • Standards: By what standards will the work be assessed?
Use 6 Facets of Understanding to Reveal Student Understanding Facet Ways of Demonstrating Understanding Explanation Explain, teach; Give examples of; Make connections with; Describe how; Prove Interpretation Interpret; Make sense of; Proved analogy for; Show the importance or meaning of Application In new situation, apply; Show or demonstrate; Use in the context of; Design Perspective Analyze; See from a point of view; Compare/contrast; Critique Empathy Walk in the shoes of; Experience directly and see; Reach a common understanding concerning; Consider the seemingly odd view Self knowledge Recognize your prejudice about; Identify the lens through which you view; See how your habits influence your approach; Explain how you came to understand Understanding by Design, pp. 158 -159
Identify the Desired Results Determine Acceptable Evidence Plan Learning Experiences
Engaging and Effective Instruction: WHERETO • Where is the unit headed? • How will the students be hooked? • How will students explore or experience key ideas? • How will students rethink and revise? • How will students evaluate their work? • How will work be tailored to a diverse student population? • How will the work be organized?
and Think, Pair and Share Evaluate the Ub. D instructional design method based on your individual needs. What are the pros/cons of this method? What features could you employ immediately? Write down your response. Pair up with another workshop participant and discuss your evaluations. What are the similarities and differences?
Course Concept Mapping • Construct a concept map that represents the key concepts and relationships between ideas for the course you are re-designing
How to construct a concept map q Central Node § BIG idea at the heart of the discipline § Most important outcome for the course q Surrounding Nodes § Related ideas, topics, etc. q Nature of the connection (relationship) between the nodes Ruíz-Primo, M. (2000). On the use of concept maps as an assessment tool in science: What we have learned so far. Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa, 2 (1).
Concept Maps Software Tools • Cmap Tools (http: // cmap. ihmc. us) § Institute for Human &Machine Cognition § Free downloadable program • C-Tools (http: //ctools. msu. edu) § Michigan State University (NSF funded) § Free web-based Java applet • SMART Ideas (http: //www 2. smarttech. com) § SMART Tech § Free trial version (30 days)
Discuss your Concept Maps
Workshop Layout • Welcome & Overview • Integrated Course Design (CAP Model) – Content – Assessment – Pedagogy (Pellegrino) • Backward Design – Understanding by Design (Wiggins and Mc. Tighe) • Integrated Course Design (Fink) • Learning Objectives – Taxonomies • Pedagogies of Engagement – Active and Cooperative Learning
Integrated Course Design Learning Goals Teaching and Learning Activities Feedback and Assessment Situational Factors
Integrated Course Design • Initial Phase: Build Strong Primary Components • Intermediate Phase: Assemble the components into a Coherent Whole • Final Phase: Finish Important Remaining Tasks
Initial Phase: Build Strong Primary Components 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Identify situational factors. Identify learning goals. Develop feedback and assessment. Select teaching and learning activities. Make sure primary components are integrated.
Initial Phase: Build Strong Primary Components 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Identify situational factors. Identify learning goals. Develop feedback and assessment. Select teaching and learning activities. Make sure primary components are integrated.
Worksheet 1 Worksheet for Designing a Course/Class Session/Learning Module Ways of Assessing Learning Goals for Course/Session/Learning Module: Actual Teaching-Learning Helpful Resources: This Kind of Learning: Activities: (e. g. , people, things) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 49
What aspects of metacognition should students learn? What changes or values do you want students to adopt? What should students learn about themselves or about interacting with others? What key information should students understand remember? What kinds of thinking are important? What skills should students learn? What connections should students recognize and make?
Initial Phase: Build Strong Primary Components 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Identify situational factors. Identify learning goals. Develop feedback and assessment. Select teaching and learning activities. Make sure primary components are integrated.
Feedback and Assessment • Forward Looking Assessment – Questions that incorporate course concepts in a real-life context • Criteria and Standards – What traits or characteristics are indicative of high quality work? • Self-Assessment – Allow students to gauge their own learning. • FIDe. Lity Feedback – Frequent, Immediate, Discriminating, Lovingly delivered
Initial Phase: Build Strong Primary Components 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Identify situational factors. Identify learning goals. Develop feedback and assessment. Select teaching and learning activities. Make sure primary components are integrated.
Initial Phase: Build Strong Primary Components 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Identify situational factors. Identify learning goals. Develop feedback and assessment. Select teaching and learning activities. Make sure primary components are integrated.
Are steps 1 -4 integrated? • What conflicts may arise due to situational factors? • Are the learning goals complete? Do students receive feedback about all learning goals? • Do the activities support all learning goals? • Does the feedback loop prepare students for understanding the criteria and standards that will be used to assess their performance? • Do practice activities provide the opportunity for self –evaluation and prepare students for later assessment activities?
Intermediate Phase: Assembling Components 6. Course Structure: Divide semester into segments that focus on key concepts or topics. 7. Instructional Strategy: Devise a set of learning activities in a particular sequence so learning progresses. 8. Overall Scheme: Integrate the course structure (from first phase) with instructional strategy.
Final Phase: Remaining Tasks 9. Identify the key components of the grading system. 10. Identify potential problems. 11. Develop a syllabus. 12. Develop an evaluation plan to determine how you will assess the course.
and Think, Pair and Share Evaluate the Integrated Course Design method based on your individual needs and compared to Ub. D. What are the pros/cons of this method? What features could you employ immediately? Are there aspects of either method that your prefer? Write down your response. Pair up with another workshop participant and discuss your evaluations. What are the similarities and differences?
Workshop Layout • Welcome & Overview • Integrated Course Design (CAP Model) – Content – Assessment – Pedagogy (Pellegrino) • Backward Design – Understanding by Design (Wiggins and Mc. Tighe) • Integrated Course Design (Fink) • Learning Objectives – Taxonomies • Pedagogies of Engagement – Active and Cooperative Learning
Purpose of Learning Objectives • Guide instructors through backward design. • Students know what is expected of them. • Allows assessment of teaching AND learning.
What is the difference between learning goals and objectives? GOALS • A broad or general description of what students will know understand or be able to do. • Help focus on the big picture. OBJECTIVES • A description of what students are expected to achieve or will be able to do. • Specific • Measurable
Learning Objectives Rubric
Learning Objective Domains • Cognitive: knowledge and development of intellectual skills • Affective: the way we deal with things emotionally • Psychomotor: physical movement, coordination, use of motor-skill areas
Taxonomies of Types of Learning Facets of understanding (Wiggins & Mc. Tighe, 1998) Taxonomy of significant learning (Fink, 2003) Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives: Cognitive Domain (Bloom & Krathwohl, 1956) A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy (Biggs & Collis, 1982)
The Six Major Levels of Bloom's Taxonomy of the Cognitive Domain (with representative behaviors and sample objectives) Knowledge. Remembering information Define, identify, label, state, list, match Identify the standard peripheral components of a computer Write the equation for the Ideal Gas Law Comprehension. Explaining the meaning of information Describe, generalize, paraphrase, summarize, estimate In one sentence explain the main idea of a written passage Describe in prose what is shown in graph form Application. Using abstractions in concrete situations Determine, chart, implement, prepare, solve, use, develop Using principles of operant conditioning, train a rate to press a bar Derive a kinetic model from experimental data Analysis. Breaking down a whole into component parts Points out, differentiate, distinguish, discriminate, compare Identify supporting evidence to support the interpretation of a literary passage Analyze an oscillator circuit and determine the frequency of oscillation Synthesis. Putting parts together to form a new and integrated whole Create, design, plan, organize, generate, write Write a logically organized essay in favor of euthanasia Develop an individualized nutrition program for a diabetic patient Evaluation. Making judgments about the merits of ideas, materials, or phenomena Appraise, critique, judge, weigh, evaluate, select Assess the appropriateness of an author's conclusions based on the evidence given Select the best proposal for a proposed water treatment plant
(Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001).
The Cognitive Process Dimension Remember Factual Knowledge – The basic The Knowledge Dimension elements that students must know to be acquainted with a discipline or solve problems in it. a. Knowledge of terminology b. Knowledge of specific details and elements Conceptual Knowledge – The interrelationships among the basic elements within a larger structure that enable them to function together. a. Knowledge of classifications and categories b. Knowledge of principles and generalizations c. Knowledge of theories, models, and structures Procedural Knowledge – How to do something; methods of inquiry, and criteria for using skills, algorithms, techniques, and methods. a. Knowledge of subject-specific skills and algorithms b. Knowledge of subject-specific techniques and methods c. Knowledge of criteria for determining when to use appropriate procedures Metacognitive Knowledge – Knowledge of cognition in general as well as awareness and knowledge of one’s own cognition. a. Strategic knowledge b. Knowledge about cognitive tasks, including appropriate contextual and conditional knowledge c. Self-knowledge Understand Apply Analyze Evaluate Create
http: //www. uwsp. edu/education/lwilson/curric/newtaxonomy. htm
Bloom’s Taxonomy Abstract Synthesis/Evaluation Analysis Application Comprehension Knowledge Concrete Modified from Bloom 1956; Krathwohl 2001
http: //mrwheeler. com/Pipelinepaperwork/Bloom. Pictures/blooms%20 taxonomy. png
Working Session • Identify one or two big ideas from your course. • Articulate learning goals for these ideas. • Develop up to 5 learning objectives that will indicate attainment of the learning goals. • Peer review using rubric. • Revise learning objectives.
Backward Design Approach: • Desired Results (Outcomes, Objectives, Learning Goals) – 5 minute university • Evidence (Assessment) – Learning Taxonomies • Plan Instruction – Cooperative Learning Planning Format & Forms 76
Taxonomies of Types of Learning Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives: Cognitive Domain (Bloom & Krathwohl, 1956) A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). Facets of understanding (Wiggins & Mc. Tighe, 1998) Taxonomy of significant learning (Fink, 2003) Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy (Biggs & Collis, 1982) A taxonomic trek: From student learning to faculty scholarship (Shulman, 2002) 77
The Six Major Levels of Bloom's Taxonomy of the Cognitive Domain (with representative behaviors and sample objectives) Knowledge. Remembering information Define, identify, label, state, list, match Identify the standard peripheral components of a computer Write the equation for the Ideal Gas Law Comprehension. Explaining the meaning of information Describe, generalize, paraphrase, summarize, estimate In one sentence explain the main idea of a written passage Describe in prose what is shown in graph form Application. Using abstractions in concrete situations Determine, chart, implement, prepare, solve, use, develop Using principles of operant conditioning, train a rate to press a bar Derive a kinetic model from experimental data Analysis. Breaking down a whole into component parts Points out, differentiate, distinguish, discriminate, compare Identify supporting evidence to support the interpretation of a literary passage Analyze an oscillator circuit and determine the frequency of oscillation Synthesis. Putting parts together to form a new and integrated whole Create, design, plan, organize, generate, write Write a logically organized essay in favor of euthanasia Develop an individualized nutrition program for a diabetic patient Evaluation. Making judgments about the merits of ideas, materials, or phenomena Appraise, critique, judge, weigh, evaluate, select Assess the appropriateness of an author's conclusions based on the evidence given Select the best proposal for a proposed water treatment plant 78
79 (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001).
The Cognitive Process Dimension Remember Understand Factual Knowledge – The basic The Knowledge Dimension elements that students must know to be acquainted with a discipline or solve problems in it. a. Knowledge of terminology b. Knowledge of specific details and elements Conceptual Knowledge – The interrelationships among the basic elements within a larger structure that enable them to function together. a. Knowledge of classifications and categories b. Knowledge of principles and generalizations c. Knowledge of theories, models, and structures Procedural Knowledge – How to do something; methods of inquiry, and criteria for using skills, algorithms, techniques, and methods. a. Knowledge of subject-specific skills and algorithms b. Knowledge of subject-specific techniques and methods c. Knowledge of criteria for determining when to use appropriate procedures Metacognitive Knowledge – Knowledge of cognition in general as well as awareness and knowledge of one’s own cognition. a. Strategic knowledge b. Knowledge about cognitive tasks, including appropriate contextual and conditional knowledge c. Self-knowledge 80 Apply Analyze Evaluate Create
81
82
Facets of Understanding Wiggins & Mc. Tighe, 1998, page 44 When we truly understand, we Can explain - cognitive Can interpret - cognitive Can apply - cognitive Have perspective - affective Can empathize - affective Have self-knowledge metacognitive 83
C o g n i t i v e A f f e c t i v e M e t a
Backward Design Stage 3. Plan Learning Experiences & Instruction • What enabling knowledge (facts, concepts, and principles) and skills (procedures) will students need to perform effectively and achieve desired results? • What activities will equip students with the needed knowledge and skills? • What will need to be taught and coached, and how should it be taught, in light of performance goals? • What materials and resources are best suited to accomplish these goals? • Is the overall design coherent and effective? 85
Session Summary (Minute Paper) Reflect on the session: 1. Most useful/helpful idea? 2. Taxonomy you’re using? 3. Muddiest point? 4. Pace: Too slow 1. . 5 Too fast 5. Relevance: Little 1. . . 5 Lots 6. Format: Ugh 1. . . 5 Ah 86
LTU – May 17, 2010 – Session 1 (am) Q 4 – Pace: Too slow 1. . 5 Too fast (3. 0) Q 5 – Relevance: Little 1. . . 5 Lots (4. 1) Q 6 – Format: Ugh 1. . . 5 Ah (4. 0) 87
Workshop Layout • Welcome & Overview • Integrated Course Design (CAP Model) – Content – Assessment – Pedagogy (Pellegrino) • Backward Design – Understanding by Design (Wiggins and Mc. Tighe) • Integrated Course Design (Fink) • Learning Objectives – Taxonomies • Pedagogies of Engagement – Active and Cooperative Learning
Session Objectives • Participants will be able to : – Describe Key Features of Cooperative learning – Explain rationale for Cooperative Learning – Summarize approaches to cooperative learning • Formal and Informal Cooperative Learning – Integrate Cooperative learning with key features of the Backward Design process – Content (outcomes) – Assessment - Pedagogy – Identify connections between cooperative learning and desired outcomes of courses and programs • Participants will begin applying key elements to the design on a course, class session or learning module 89
“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) 90
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) 91 Undergraduate Education - http: //www 7. nationalacademies. org/bose/Fairweather_Commissioned. Paper. pdf
MIT & Harvard – Engaged Pedagogy January 13, 2009—New York Times http: //www. nytimes. com/2009/01/13/us/13 physics. html? em January 2, 2009—Science, Vol. 323 www. sciencemag. org Calls for evidence-based teaching practices
http: //web. mit. edu/edtech/casestudies/teal. html#video
http: //www. ncsu. edu/PER/scaleup. html
Pedagogies of Engagement 95
The American College Teacher: National Norms for 2007 -2008 Methods Used in “All” or “Most” Cooperative Learning Group Projects All – 2005 48 All – 2008 59 Assistant 2008 66 33 36 61 Grading on a curve Term/research papers 19 17 14 35 44 47 96 http: //www. heri. ucla. edu/index. php
Reflection and Dialogue • Individually reflect on Cooperative Learning Experiences, especially 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
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) 98
Resources • • • Fairweather (2008) Linking Evidence and Promising Practices in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Undergraduate Education http: //www 7. nationalacademies. org/bose/Fairweather _Commissioned. Paper. pdf 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. Smith, K. A. , Sheppard, S. D. , Johnson, D. W. and Johnson, R. T. 2005. Pedagogies of engagement: Classroom-based practices. Journal of Engineering Education [Smith-Pedagogies_of_Engagement. pdf]
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) 100
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
102 http: //www. ce. umn. edu/~smith/docs/Smith-CL%20 Handout%2008. pdf
Book Ends on a Class Session 103
Book Ends on a Class Session 1. Advance Organizer 2. Formulate-Share-Listen-Create (Turn-to -your-neighbor) -- repeated every 10 -12 minutes 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?
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. 105
Quick Thinks • Reorder the steps • Paraphrase the idea • Correct the error • Support a statement • Select the response Johnston, S. & Cooper, J. 1997. Quick thinks: Activethinking in lecture classes and televised instruction. Cooperative learning and college teaching, 8(1), 2 -7. 106
Formulate-Share-Listen-Create Informal Cooperative Learning Group Introductory Pair Discussion of a FOCUS QUESTION 1. Formulate your response to the question individually 2. Share your answer with a partner 3. Listen carefully to your partner's answer 4. Work together to Create a new answer through discussion 107
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. 108
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 fast 5. Relevance: Little 1. . . 5 Lots 6. Instructional Format: Ugh 1. . . 5 Ah 109
MSU STEMES – 2010 – Session 1 (5/20/10) Q 4 – Pace: Too slow 1. . 5 Too fast (2. 6) Q 5 – Relevance: Little 1. . . 5 Lots (4. 5) Q 6 – Format: Ugh 1. . . 5 Ah (4. 3)
Informal CL (Book Ends on a Class Session) with Concept Tests Physics Peer Instruction Eric Mazur - Harvard – http: //galileo. harvard. edu Peer Instruction – www. prenhall. com Richard Hake – http: //www. physics. indiana. edu/~hake/ Chemistry Concep. Tests - UW Madison www. chem. wisc. edu/~concept Video: Making Lectures Interactive with Concep. Tests Modular. Chem Consortium – http: //mc 2. cchem. berkeley. edu/ STEMTEC Video: How Change Happens: Breaking the “Teach as You Were Taught” Cycle – Films for the Humanities & Sciences – www. films. com Harvard Thinking Together & From Questions to Concepts Interactive Teaching in Physics: 111 Derek Bok Center – www. fas. harvard. edu/~bok_cen/
The “Hake” Plot of FCI 35. 00 SDI 30. 00 X ALS UMn-CL+PS WP 25. 00 20. 00 UMn Cooperative Groups 15. 00 X PI(HU) UMn Traditional ASU(nc) 10. 00 WP* ASU(c) HU 5. 00 0. 00 20. 00 30. 00 40. 00 50. 00 112 Pretest (Percent) 60. 00 70. 00 80. 00
Richard Hake (Interactive engagement vs traditional methods) http: //www. physics. indiana. edu/~hake/ Traditional (lecture) Interactive (active/cooperative) <g> = Concept Inventory Gain/Total
114
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. 115
Informal Cooperative Learning Groups Can be used at any time Can be short term and ad hoc May be used to break up a long lecture Provides an opportunity for students to process material they have been listening to (Cognitive Rehearsal) Are especially effective in large lectures Include "book ends" procedure Are not as effective as Formal Cooperative Learning or Cooperative Base Groups
Strategies for Energizing Large Classes: From Small Groups to Learning Communities: Jean Mac. Gregor, James Cooper, Karl Smith, Pamela Robinson New Directions for Teaching and Learning, No. 81, 2000. Jossey- Bass
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) 118
Formal Cooperative Learning Task Groups
http: //www. aacu. org/advocacy/leap/documents/Re 8097 abcombined. pdf 120
Top Three Main Engineering Work Activities Civil/Architectural • Management – 45% • Design – 39% • Computer applications – 20% Engineering Total • Design – 36% • Computer applications – 31% • Management – 29% Burton, L. , Parker, L, & Le. Bold, W. 1998. U. S. engineering career trends. ASEE Prism, 7(9), 18 -21. 121
Teamwork Skills • Communication • Listening and Persuading • Decision Making • Conflict Management • Leadership • Trust and Loyalty 122
Design Thinking Discipline Thinking Ideo's five-point model for strategizing by design: Hit the Streets Recruit T-Shaped People Build to Think The Prototype Tells a Story Design Is Never Done Tom Friedman Horizontalize Ourselves CQ+PQ>IQ 123 AAC&U College Learning For the New Global Century
124 http: //www. stanford. edu/group/dschool/big_picture/our_vision. html
Design team failure is usually due to failed team dynamics (Leifer, Koseff & Lenshow, 1995). It’s the soft stuff that’s hard, the hard stuff is easy (Doug Wilde, quoted in Leifer, 1997) Professional Skills (Shuman, L. , Besterfield-Sacre, M. , and Mc. Gourty, J. , “The ABET Professional Skills-Can They Be Taught? Can They Be Assessed? ” Journal of Engineering Education, Vo. 94, No. 1, 2005, pp. 41– 55. )
Teamwork 126
Characteristics of Effective Teams • respect for others • Open criticism • Common goals • Good, clear communication • Passion for the subject or work • Loyalty to the group – not wanting to let others down • Good listening • Motivation • Trusting that others will do their job • Challenging one another respectively • Defined roles • Different perspectives or experiences – complementary (and valuing them) • Commitment • Willingness to compromise • Bring level of competence • Appropriate roles • Agreement (buy in) on the roles 127
A team is a small number of people with complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose, performance goals, and approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable • SMALL NUMBER • COMPLEMENTARY SKILLS • COMMON PURPOSE & PERFORMANCE GOALS • COMMON APPROACH • MUTUAL ACCOUNTABILITY --Katzenbach & Smith (1993) The Wisdom of Teams
Hackman – Leading Teams • • Real Team Compelling Direction Enabling Structure Supportive Organizational Context • Available Expert Coaching Team Diagnostic Survey (TDS) 129 https: //research. wjh. harvard. edu/TDS/
Team Charter • • • Team name, membership, and roles Team Mission Statement Anticipated results (goals) Specific tactical objectives Ground rules/Guiding principles for team participation Shared expectations/aspirations
Code of Cooperation • EVERY member is responsible for the team’s progress and success. • Attend all team meetings and be on time. • Come prepared. • Carry out assignments on schedule. • Listen to and show respect for the contributions of other members; be an active listener. • CONSTRUCTIVELY criticize ideas, not persons. • Resolve conflicts constructively, • Pay attention, avoid disruptive behavior. • Avoid disruptive side conversations. • Only one person speaks at a time. • Everyone participates, no one dominates. • Be succinct, avoid long anecdotes and examples. • No rank in the room. • Respect those not present. • Ask questions when you do not understand. • Attend to your personal comfort needs at any time but minimize team disruption. • HAVE FUN!! • ? Adapted from Boeing Aircraft Group Team Member Training Manual
Ten Commandments: An Affective Code of Cooperation • Help each other be right, not wrong. • Look for ways to make new ideas work, not for reasons they won't. • If in doubt, check it out! Don't make negative assumptions about each other. • Help each other win, and take pride in each other's victories. • Speak positively about each other and about your organization at every opportunity. • Maintain a positive mental attitude no matter what the circumstances. • Act with initiative and courage, as if it all depends on you. • Do everything with enthusiasm; it's contagious. • Whatever you want; give it away. • Don't lose faith. • Have fun Ford Motor Company 132
133
Group Processing Plus/Delta Format Plus (+) Things That Group Did Well Delta (Δ) Things Group Could Improve
Professor's Role in Formal Cooperative Learning 1. Specifying Objectives 2. Making Decisions 3. Explaining Task, Positive Interdependence, and Individual Accountability 4. Monitoring and Intervening to Teach Skills 5. Evaluating Students' Achievement and Group Effectiveness 135
Formal Cooperative Learning – Types of Tasks 1. Jigsaw – Learning new conceptual/procedural material 2. Peer Composition or Editing 3. Reading Comprehension/Interpretation 4. Problem Solving, Project, or Presentation 5. Review/Correct Homework 6. Constructive Academic Controversy 7. Group Tests
Challenged-Based Learning • • • Problem-based learning Case-based learning Project-based learning Learning by design Inquiry learning Anchored instruction John Bransford, Nancy Vye and Helen Bateman. Creating High-Quality Learning Environments: Guidelines from Research on How People Learn 137
Challenge-Based Instruction with the Legacy Cycle The Challenges Generate Ideas Go Public Legacy Cycle Test Your Mettle Multiple Perspectives Research & Revise https: //repo. vanth. org/portal/public-content/star-legacy-cycle 138
Problem-Based Learning START Apply it Problem posed Learn it Identify what we need to know 139
Problem Based Cooperative Learning Format TASK: Solve the problem(s) or Complete the project. INDIVIDUAL: Estimate answer. Note strategy. COOPERATIVE: One set of answers from the group, strive for agreement, make sure everyone is able to explain the strategies used to solve each problem. EXPECTED CRITERIA FOR SUCCESS: Everyone must be able to explain the strategies used to solve each problem. EVALUATION: Best answer within available resources or constraints. INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTABILITY: One member from your group may be randomly chosen to explain (a) the answer and (b) how to solve each problem. EXPECTED BEHAVIORS: Active participating, checking, encouraging, and elaborating by all members. INTERGROUP COOPERATION: Whenever it is helpful, check procedures, 140 answers, and strategies with another group.
141 http: //www. udel. edu/pbl/
Cooperative Base Groups • Are Heterogeneous • Are Long Term (at least one quarter or semester) • Are Small (3 -5 members) • Are for support • May meet at the beginning of each session or may meet between sessions • Review for quizzes, tests, etc. together • Share resources, references, etc. for individual projects • Provide a means for covering for absentees 142
Design and Implementation of Cooperative Learning – Resources • Design Framework – How People Learn (HPL) – Creating High Quality Learning Environments (Bransford, Vye & Bateman) -http: //www. nap. edu/openbook/0309082927/html/ • Design & Backward Design Process (Felder & Brent, Fink and Wiggins & Mc. Tighe) – Pellegrino – Rethinking and redesigning curriculum, instruction and assessment: What contemporary research and theory suggests. http: //www. skillscommission. org/commissioned. htm – 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. • Content Resources – Donald, Janet. 2002. Learning to think: Disciplinary perspectives. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. – Middendorf, Joan and Pace, David. 2004. Decoding the Disciplines: A Model for Helping Students Learn Disciplinary Ways of Thinking. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 98. • Pedagogies of Engagement - Instructional Format explanation and exercise to model format and to engage workshop participants – Cooperative Learning (Johnson, Johnson & Smith) • Smith web site – www. ce. umn. edu/~smith – University of Delaware PBL web site – www. udel. edu/pbl – PKAL – Pedagogies of Engagement – http: //www. pkal. org/activities/Pedagogies. Of. Engagement. Summit. cfm – Fairweather (2008) Linking Evidence and Promising Practices in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Undergraduate Education http: //www 7. nationalacademies. org/bose/Fairweather_Commissioned. Paper. pdf 143
Acknowledgements • We thank the National Science Foundation for funding the development of this short course through Expanding and sustaining research capacity in engineering and technology education: Building on successful programs for faculty and graduate students (NSF DUE-0817461). • Special thanks to Cori Fata-Hartley and the 14 th Annual Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education Scholars (STEMES) Program – http: //fod. msu. edu/springinstitute/stemes/about. asp for sharing slides with us. • Workshop materials are posted on – CLEERhub. org 144
Скачать презентацию Integrated Course Design for Outcomes Based Education OBE
0b994158b1744921a51a15566481457c.ppt