Design and Implementation of Active and Cooperative Learning in Introductory Transportation Classes

1. Design and Implementation of Active and Cooperative Learning in Large Introductory Transportation Classes Karl A. Smith Engineering Education – Purdue University Civil Engineering - University of Minnesota ksmith@umn.edu - http://www.ce.umn.edu/~smith/ Transportation Education Conference Portland, OR June 2009

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] 2

3. …objectives for engineering practice, research, and education: To adopt a systemic, research-based approach to innovation and continuous improvement of engineering education, recognizing the importance of diverse approaches–albeit characterized by quality and rigor–to serve the highly diverse technology needs of our society http://milproj.ummu.umich.edu/publications/EngFlex%20report/download/EngFlex%20Report.pdf 3

4. Workshop Layout • Welcome & Overview • Integrated Course Design (CAP Model) • Content • Assessment • Pedagogy • Active & Cooperative Learning • Informal – Bookends on a Class Session • Formal – Problem-Based Cooperative Learning • Design and Teamwork Features • Wiggins & McTighe Backward Design Approach – Course, Class or Lab Session, and Learning Module Design: From Objectives and Evidence to Instruction • Wrap-up and Next Steps 4

5. Session Objectives • Participants will be able to • Develop/refine rationale for Active and Cooperative Learning • Describe key features of Cooperative Learning, especially interdependence and accountability • Apply cooperative learning to classroom practice • Make connections between cooperative learning and desired outcomes of courses and programs • Describe key features of the Backward Design process – Content (outcomes) – Assessment - Pedagogy

6. Session Summary • (Minute Paper) • Reflect on the session: • What were the most important points for you? • What is one thing you will take away? • What questions do you have? • Pace: Too slow 1 . . . . 5 Too fast • Relevance: Little 1 . . . 5 Lots • Format: Ugh 1 . . . 5 Ah 6

7. Transportation Education June 2009 – Workshop 1 Q4 – Pace: Too slow 1 . . . . 5 Too fast (2.8) Q5 – Relevance: Little 1 . . . 5 Lots (3.8) Q6 – Format: Ugh 1 . . . 5 Ah (3.5) 7

8. MOT 8221 – Spring 2009 – Session 1 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) 8

9. Workshop 1: Reflection and Dialogue • Individually reflect on the first workshop & write for about 1 minute • Key ideas, insights, applications • Questions, concerns • Discuss with your neighbor for a about 2 minutes • Select one comment, question, etc. that you would like to present to the whole group if you are randomly selected 9

10. Background Knowledge Survey • Familiarity with • Approaches to Course Design • Wiggins & McTighe – Understanding by Design (Backward Design) • Felder & Brent – Effective Course Design • Fink – Creating Significant Learning Experiences • Active and Cooperative Learning Strategies • Informal – turn-to-your-neighbor • Formal – cooperative problem-based learning • Research • How People Learn • Student engagement – NSSE • Cooperative learning • Responsibility • Individual course • Program • Accreditation

11. MOT 8221 – 2009 Background Survey N = 30/30 11 11

12. N = 30/30 12 12

13. Goals and Objectives Instruction Effective Course Design (Felder & Brent, 1999) ABET EC 2000 Bloom’s Taxonomy Course-specific goals & objectives Classroom assessment techniques Technology Cooperative learning Students Assessment Other experiences Tests Other measures Lectures Labs 13

14. CAP Design Process Flowchart Integrated Course Design (Fink, 2003) Initial Design Phase Start 1. Situational Factors Context Backward Design 2. Learning Goals Content 3. Feedback and Assessment Assessment 4. Teaching/Learning Activities 5. Integration Pedagogy C & A & P Alignment? No Yes End

15. CAP Design Process (Shawn’s Model) Start Context Content Cloud of alignment Assessment Pedagogy End

16. 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. • Bransford, Vye and Bateman – Creating High Quality Learning Environments • Pellegrino – Rethinking and Redesigning Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment

17. Designing Learning Environments Based on HPL (How People Learn)

18. Backward DesignWiggins & McTighe Stage 1. Identify Desired Results Stage 2. Determine Acceptable Evidence Stage 3. Plan Learning Experiences and Instruction Wiggins, Grant and McTighe, Jay. 1998. Understanding by Design. Alexandria, VA: ASCD

19. 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?

20. Backward Design Stage 2. Determine Acceptable Evidence Types of Assessment Quiz and Test Items: Simple, content-focused test items Academic Prompts: Open-ended questions or problems that require the student to think critically Performance Tasks or Projects: Complex challenges that mirror the issues or problems faced by graduates, they are authentic

21. Understanding Understanding Stage 1. Identify Desired Results Focus Question: What does it mean to “understand”? Stage 2. Determine Acceptable Evidence Focus Questions: “How will we know if students have achieved the desired results and met the standards? What will we accept as evidence of student understanding and proficiency (Wiggins & McTighe)

22. Understanding Misunderstanding • A Private Universe – 21 minute video available from www.learner.org • Also see Minds of our own (Annenberg/CPB Math and Science Collection – www.learner.org) • Can we believe our eyes? • Lessons from thin air • Under construction • Teaching Teaching & Understanding Understanding - http://www.daimi.au.dk/~brabrand/short-film/index-gv.html

23. 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 – Rethinking and redesigning curriculum, instruction and assessment: What contemporary research and theory suggests

24. Taxonomies 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) Facets of understanding (Wiggins & McTighe, 1998) Taxonomy of significant learning (Dee Fink, 2003) 24

25. The Cognitive Process Dimension The Knowledge Dimension 25 Imbrie and Brophy, 2007

26. 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. 26

27. Lila M. Smith

28. Pedago-pathologies Amnesia Fantasia Inertia Lee Shulman – MSU Med School – PBL Approach (late 60s – early 70s); Stanford University, Past President of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of College Teaching Shulman, Lee S. 1999. Taking learning seriously. Change, 31 (4), 11-17.

29. What do we do about these pathologies? – Lee Shulman Activity Reflection Collaboration Passion Shulman, Lee S. 1999. Taking learning seriously. Change, 31 (4), 11-17. 29

30. Lila M. Smith

31. Pedagogies of Engagement 31

32. MIT & Harvard – Engaged Pedagogy January 13, 2009—New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/us/13physics.html?em January 2, 2009—Science, Vol. 323 www.sciencemag.org Calls for evidence-based teaching practices

33. http://web.mit.edu/edtech/casestudies/teal.html#video

34. http://www.ncsu.edu/PER/scaleup.html

35. Cooperative Learning •Positive Interdependence •Individual and Group Accountability •Face-to-Face Promotive Interaction •Teamwork Skills •Group Processing

36. 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 retention 2. Critical thinking and higher-level reasoning 3. Differentiated views of others 4. Accurate understanding of others' perspectives 5. Liking for classmates and teacher 6. Liking for subject areas 7. Teamwork skills January 2005 March 2007

37. Faculty interest in higher levels of inquiry in engineering education • Level 0Teacher • Teach as taught • Level 1 Effective Teacher • Teach using accepted teaching theories and practices • Level 2 Scholarly Teacher • Assesses performance and makes improvements • Level 3 Scholar of Teaching and Learning • Engages in educational experimentation, shares results • Level 4 Engineering Education Researcher • Conducts educational research, publishes archival papers Source: Streveler, R., Borrego, M. and Smith, K.A. 2007. Moving from the “Scholarship of Teaching and Learning” to “Educational Research:” An Example from Engineering. To Improve the Academy, Vol. 25, 139-149.

38. 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) 38

39. 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

40. Individual & Group Accountability • ? 40

41. 41 http://www.ce.umn.edu/~smith/docs/Smith-CL%20Handout%2008.pdf

42. Book Ends on a Class Session 42

43. Book Ends on a Class Session • Advance Organizer • Formulate-Share-Listen-Create (Turn-to-your-neighbor) -- repeated every 10-12 minutes • Session Summary (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?

44. 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. 44

45. 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. 45

46. Formulate-Share-Listen-Create • Informal Cooperative Learning Group • Introductory Pair Discussion of a • FOCUS QUESTION • Formulate your response to the question individually • Share your answer with a partner • Listen carefully to your partner's answer • Work together to Create a new answer through discussion 46

47. 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. 47

48. 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. • Pace: Too slow 1 . . . . 5 Too fast • Relevance: Little 1 . . . 5 Lots • Instructional Format: Ugh 1 . . . 5 Ah 48

49. MOT 8221 – Spring 2009 – Session 1 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) 49

50. 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 Chemistry ConcepTests - UW Madison www.chem.wisc.edu/~concept Video: Making Lectures Interactive with ConcepTests ModularChem Consortium – http://mc2.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: Derek Bok Center – www.fas.harvard.edu/~bok_cen/ 50