1 / 27

“New Teaching and Learning Pedagogies and Their Assessment”

“New Teaching and Learning Pedagogies and Their Assessment”. Workshop Coordinators: Bernie Van Wie, Gary Brown, Paul Golter, Dave Thiessen Washington State University Fred Weber University of Tennessee. Workshop Outline. Workshop Philosophy – Bernie Van Wie

dotty
Download Presentation

“New Teaching and Learning Pedagogies and Their Assessment”

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. “New Teaching and Learning Pedagogies and Their Assessment” Workshop Coordinators: Bernie Van Wie, Gary Brown, Paul Golter, Dave Thiessen Washington State University Fred Weber University of Tennessee

  2. Workshop Outline • Workshop Philosophy – Bernie Van Wie • Web-based Collaboration, Rich-text Delivery, On-line Assessment – Fred Weber • CHAPL Strategy – Paul Golter • Desktop Learning Modules – Dave Thiessen, Van Wie, Golter, Sean Isacson (WSU Senior ) • Learning Assessment – Gary Brown

  3. Learning Retention 10 % Read Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. Hear 26 % 30 % See 50 % See & Hear 70 % Say 90 % Say & Do

  4. Deductive Teaching Theory-driven lectures Formula-driven H.W. Answer-driven responses Designs simulated on paper or computer Inductive Learning Sensor-driven learning Trends  formulas Concept-driven understanding Verbal enhanced retention Engineering Educational Mismatch

  5. Engineering Education auditory intuitive deductive passive sequential Engineering Learners visual sensing inductive active global What the Literature Says

  6. Cooperative Learning • Positive interdependence: must do their part • Individual accountability: must do their share & master all concepts • Face-to-face promotive interaction: challenge, encourage, teach others • Use collaborative skills: trust bldg., leadership, decision-making, conflict management • Group processing: assess goals & teamwork

  7. Instructor’s Part Assure Concept Coverage Balance Groups Engage Students Assess Approaches Assess Learning Student’s Part Study Concepts Hands-On Learning Cooperative Learning –Learn From Others/ Teach Others Design Projects Roles in Employing Pedagogy

  8. Kolb’s Experiential Learning Model Concrete Experience Reflective Observation Active Experimentation Abstract Conceptualization Kolb, D. Experiential Learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1984.

  9. 1) Kolb’s Affective EnvironmentConcrete Events (CE) • Environment: • Attitudes toward field • Learner/Information: • Here & now - feelings, opinions • Teachers: • Listen, counsel, personalized & immediate feedback

  10. 2) Kolb’s Perceptual EnvironmentReflective Observation (RO) • Environment: • Understand concepts/relationships • Learner/Information: • How or why; try out new thoughts on subject • Discipline-based standards to evaluate • Teachers: • Direct, bound discussions

  11. 3) Kolb’s Symbolic EnvironmentAbstract Conceptualization (AC) • Environment: • Master concept to solve problems • Information/Learner: • There & then; objective data • Communicate w/ special terms, rules, protocols, memory recall • Teachers: • Knowledge interpreter; guides formulation & correctness w.r.t. objective criteria from axioms

  12. 4) Kolb’s Behavior EnvironmentActive Experimentation (AE) • Environment: • Apply knowledge to professional solutions • Information/Learner: • Plan presentation to finish a task • Act & judge w/ professional criteria • Teachers: • Coach w/ experiential advice • Let learners be responsible for outcome

  13. Kolb’s CyclesProject I - Fluid Mechanics e.g. Reynolds’ Experiment

  14. Kolb’s Cycle IProject I - Fluid Mechanics • Tying Equipment to Concepts • 1) see: valve, pipe, syringe, dye, tubing • 2) reflect: can study flow behavior • 3) theorize: fast & slow flow represent regimes • 4) act: set valve, observe flows

  15. Kolb’s Cycle IIProject I - Fluid Mechanics • Tying Equipment to Concepts • 1) see: streams - slow flow; mixing - fast flow • 2) reflect: slow - layers; fast - change direction 3) theorize: slow - surface drag; fast - mechanical energy losses • 4) act: test pressure loss vs flow regime

  16. Kolb’s Cycle IIIProject I - Fluid Mechanics • Tying Equipment to Concepts • 1) see: pressure change • 2) reflect: relate to regime • 3) theorize: fast = (v)2; slow = v • 4) act: use relations in fluid transport set-up

  17. Iterative Kolb’s CyclesProject II - Heat Exchangers

  18. Course Assessment by ChE Faculty Visitor Former ChE Chair, Textbook Author • Aspects which aided student learning: • Students quick to experiment and try things • Student lectures to other students effective • format seemed to get more of students involved • Recommendations for improvements: • Could use a little more guidance from instructor • Need a feedback mechanism so students realize how much they are learning

  19. Hands-On Environment At 1st reactive behavior Nearly all engaged If on periphery - intent Instr. engaged or observing Developed, challenged, tested explanations Instr. response w/ Q’s Math models as machines Jigsaw like trad’l lecture Typical Lecture Period 8.6 prof. lead Q’s 6 student lead Q’s 5.3/17 asked Q’s 3/5.3 by same students 2.3/5.3 by 5 others 70% asked no Q’s Students paid attn. Engagement – CTL Evaluator

  20. Student Perspective Observe real phenomena Responsible for learning Gain confidence Learn to depend on each other Teacher Perspective Student’s thoughts paramount Misconceptions identified Convinced of student understanding Professor’s View of Pedagogical Benefits

More Related