Content, Assessment and Pedagogy: An Integrated Design Approach - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Content, Assessment and Pedagogy: An Integrated Design Approach PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 68c6a0-MjEwM



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Content, Assessment and Pedagogy: An Integrated Design Approach

Description:

Content, Assessment and Pedagogy: An Integrated Design Approach Karl A. Smith Engineering Education Purdue University Civil Engineering - University of Minnesota – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:8
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Date added: 24 February 2020
Slides: 77
Provided by: KarlA77
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Content, Assessment and Pedagogy: An Integrated Design Approach


1
Content, Assessment and Pedagogy An Integrated
Design Approach
Karl A. Smith Engineering Education Purdue
University Civil Engineering - University of
Minnesota ksmith_at_umn.edu - http//www.ce.umn.edu/
smith/ Washington State University February 2010
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
Workshop Layout
  • Welcome Overview
  • Integrated Course Design (CAP Model)
  • Content
  • Assessment
  • Pedagogy
  • Active Cooperative Learning
  • Informal Bookends on a Class Session (PoE
    Seminar)
  • Formal Cooperative Learning
  • Design and Teamwork Features
  • Wrap-up and Next Steps

4
Workshop Objectives
  • Participants will be able to
  • Explain rationale for Active and Cooperative
    Learning
  • Describe key features of Cooperative Learning
  • Apply cooperative learning to classroom practice
  • Describe key features of the Backward Design
    process Content (outcomes) Assessment -
    Pedagogy
  • Identify connections between cooperative learning
    and desired outcomes of courses and programs

5
Background Knowledge Survey
  • Familiarity with
  • Approaches to Course Design
  • Wiggins McTighe Understanding by Design
    (Backward Design)
  • Fink Creating Significant Learning Experiences
  • Felder Brent Effective Course Design
  • Active and Cooperative Learning Strategies
  • Informal turn-to-your-neighbor
  • Formal cooperative problem-based learning
  • Research
  • Student engagement NSSE
  • Cooperative learning
  • How People Learn
  • Responsibility
  • Individual course
  • Program
  • Accreditation
  • Other

6
Reflection and Dialogue
  • Individually reflect on your familiarity with (1)
    Integrated Course Design and (2) Active and
    Cooperative Learning. Write for about 1 minute
  • Key ideas, insights, applications Success
    Stories
  • Questions, concerns
  • Discuss with your neighbor for about 3 minutes
  • Select one Insight, Success Story, Comment,
    Question, etc. that you would like to present to
    the whole group if you are randomly selected

7
Background Knowledge Survey
  • Familiarity with
  • Approaches to Course Design
  • Wiggins McTighe Understanding by Design
    (Backward Design)
  • Fink Creating Significant Learning Experiences
  • Felder Brent Effective Course Design
  • Active and Cooperative Learning Strategies
  • Informal turn-to-your-neighbor
  • Formal cooperative problem-based learning
  • Research
  • Student engagement NSSE
  • Cooperative learning
  • How People Learn
  • Responsibility
  • Individual course
  • Program
  • Accreditation
  • Other

8
MOT 8221 2010 Background Survey
PM Q1
PMI Q2
KM Q3
Leadership Q4
EngSys Q5
N 29/30
IE/OR Q6
Mod/Sim Q7
CAS Q8
MgmtSci Q9
6 Sigma Q10
9
Spread Q1
PM Q2
Stat Q3
Mod/Sim Q4
DB Q5
Prog Q6
KM/ES Q7
N 29/30
10
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

11
Designing Learning Environments Based on HPL (How
People Learn)
12
Backward Design Wiggins 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
13
CAP Design Process Flowchart
14
Effective Course Design
(Felder Brent, 1999)
ABET EC 2000
Blooms Taxonomy
Course-specific goals objectives
Classroom assessment techniques
Technology
Cooperative learning
Students
Assessment
Other experiences
Tests
Other measures
Lectures
Labs
15
Backward Design Wiggins 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
16
Stage 1. Identify Desired Results
  • Filters
  • 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?

17
Backward Design Approach
  • Desired Results (Outcomes, Objectives, Learning
    Goals)
  • 5 minute university
  • Evidence (Assessment)
  • Learning Taxonomies
  • Plan Instruction
  • Cooperative Learning Planning Format Forms

18
The Cognitive Process Dimension
Remember Understand Apply Analyze Evaluate Create
Factual Knowledge The basic 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 ones own cognition. a. Strategic knowledge b. Knowledge about cognitive tasks, including appropriate contextual and conditional knowledge c. Self-knowledge
The Knowledge Dimension
A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing
A revision of Blooms taxonomy of educational
objectives (Anderson Krathwohl, 2001).
19
Taxonomies Blooms taxonomy of educational
objectives Cognitive Domain (Bloom Krathwohl,
1956) A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and
assessing A revision of Blooms 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 (Fink, 2003) A taxonomic
trek From student learning to faculty
scholarship (Shulman, 2002)
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
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?

22
Lila M. Smith
23
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.
24
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.
25
Lila M. Smith
26
Pedagogies of Engagement
27
MIT Harvard Engaged Pedagogy
January 2, 2009Science, Vol. 323
www.sciencemag.org
January 13, 2009New York Times http//www.nytimes
.com/2009/01/13/us/13physics.html?em
Calls for evidence-based teaching practices
28
http//web.mit.edu/edtech/casestudies/teal.htmlvi
deo
29
http//www.ncsu.edu/PER/scaleup.html
30
Cooperative Learning Positive Interdependence In
dividual and Group Accountability Face-to-Face
Promotive Interaction Teamwork Skills Group
Processing
31
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
32
Levels of Inquiry (Levels 1, 2 3 from Shulman
Hutchings)
  • Level 0 Teacher
  • 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 Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
  • Engages in educational experimentation, shares
    results
  • Level 4 Disciplinary 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.
33
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)
34
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
35
Individual Group Accountability
  • ?

36
http//www.ce.umn.edu/smith/docs/Smith-CL20Hando
ut2008.pdf
37
Book Ends on a Class Session
38
Formal Cooperative Learning Task Groups
39
http//www.aacu.org/advocacy/leap/documents/Re8097
abcombined.pdf
40
Top Three Main Engineering Work Activities
  • Engineering Total
  • Design 36
  • Computer applications 31
  • Management 29
  • Civil/Architectural
  • Management 45
  • Design 39
  • Computer applications 20

Burton, L., Parker, L, LeBold, W. 1998. U.S.
engineering career trends. ASEE Prism, 7(9),
18-21.
41
  • Teamwork Skills
  • Communication
  • Listening and Persuading
  • Decision Making
  • Conflict Management
  • Leadership
  • Trust and Loyalty

42
Teamwork
43
  • Characteristics of Effective Teams
  • ?

44
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 --Katzen
bach Smith (1993) The Wisdom of Teams
45
Hackman Leading Teams
  • Real Team
  • Compelling Direction
  • Enabling Structure
  • Supportive Organizational Context
  • Available Expert Coaching

Team Diagnostic Survey (TDS)
https//research.wjh.harvard.edu/TDS/
46
  • 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

47
Code of Cooperation EVERY member is responsible
for the teams 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
48
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
49
(No Transcript)
50
Group Processing Plus/Delta Format
Delta (?) Things Group Could Improve
Plus () Things That Group Did Well
51
  • Formal Cooperative Learning Types of Tasks
  • 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

52
Problem-Based Cooperative Learning Karl A.
Smith Engineering Education Purdue
University Civil Engineering - University of
Minnesota ksmith_at_umn.edu http//www.ce.umn.edu/sm
ith Estimation Exercise
53
  • Professor's Role in
  • Formal Cooperative Learning
  • Specifying Objectives
  • Making Decisions
  • Explaining Task, Positive Interdependence, and
    Individual Accountability
  • Monitoring and Intervening to Teach Skills
  • Evaluating Students' Achievement and Group
    Effectiveness

54
Decisions,Decisions Group size? Group
selection? Group member roles? How long to leave
groups together? Arranging the room? Providing
materials? Time allocation?
55
Formal Cooperative Learning Task Groups
Perkins, David. 2003. King Arthur's Round Table
How collaborative conversations create smart
organizations. NY Wiley.
56
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, answers, and strategies with another
group.
57
Team Member Roles
  • Observer/ Process Recorder
  • Task Recorder
  • Skeptic/Prober

58
Action Name 1 Name 2 Name 3 Name 4 Total
Contributes Ideas
Describes Feelings
Encourages Participation
Summarizes, Integrates
Checks for Understanding
Relates New To Old Learning
Gives Direction To Work
Total
59
Technical Estimation Exercise TASK
INDIVIDUAL Quick Estimate (10 seconds). Note
strategy. COOPERATIVE Improved Estimate (15
minutes). One set of answers from the group,
strive for agreement, make sure everyone is able
to explain the strategies used to arrive at the
improved estimate. EXPECTED CRITERIA FOR
SUCCESS Everyone must be able to explain the
strategies used to arrive at your improved
estimate. EVALUATION Best answer within
available resources or constraints. INDIVIDUAL
ACCOUNTABILITY One member from your group may
be randomly chosen to explain (a) your estimate
and (b) how you arrived at it. EXPECTED
BEHAVIORS Active participating, checking,
encouraging, and elaborating by all
members. INTERGROUP COOPERATION Whenever it is
helpful, check procedures, answers, and
strategies with another group.
60
Group Reports
  • Number of Ping Pong Balls
  • Group 1
  • Group 2
  • . . .
  • Strategy used to arrive at estimate
    assumptions, model, method, etc.

61
Model 1 (lower bound) let L be the length of
the room, let W be its width, let H be its
height, and let D be the diameter of a ping
pong ball. Then the volume of the room is
Vroom L W H, and the volume of
a ball (treating it as a cube) is
Vball D3, so number of balls (Vroom) /
(Vball) (L W H) / (D3).
62
Model 2 (upper bound) let L be the length of
the room, let W be its width, let H be its
height, and let D be the diameter of a ping
pong ball. Then the volume of the room is
Vroom L W H, and the volume of
a ball (treating it as a sphere) is
Vball 4/3 pr3, so number of balls
(Vroom) / (Vball) (L W H) / (4/3 p r3).
63
Model 1 (Vroom / D3ball) B Lower Bound Model 2
(Vroom / (4/3 pr3ball)) B Upper Bound Upper
Bound/Lower Bound 6/p 2 How does this ratio
compare with 1.The estimation of the diameter of
the ball? 2.The estimation of the dimensions of
the room?
64
Model World
Real World
Model
Vr/Vb
Calc
65
(No Transcript)
66
Problem-Based Learning
67
Subject-Based Learning
Normative Professional Curriculum 1. Teach the
relevant basic science, 2. Teach the relevant
applied science, and 3. Allow for a practicum
to connect the science to actual practice.
68
  • Problem-Based Learning (PBL)
  • Problem-based learning is the learning that
    results from the process of working toward the
    understanding or resolution of a problem. The
    problem is encountered first in the learning
    process B Barrows and Tamlyn, 1980
  • Core Features of PBL
  • Learning is student-centered
  • Learning occurs in small student groups
  • Teachers are facilitators or guides
  • Problems are the organizing focus and stimulus
    for learning
  • Problems are the vehicle for the development of
    clinical problem-solving skills
  • New information is acquired through self-directed
    learning

69
Group Processing Plus/Delta Format
Delta (?) Things Group Could Improve
Plus () Things That Group Did Well
70
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
71
Modeling Modeling in its broadest sense is the
cost-effective use of something in place of
something else for some cognitive purpose
(Rothenberg, 1989). A model represents reality
for the given purpose the model is an
abstraction of reality in the sense that it
cannot represent all aspects of reality. Any
model is characterized by three essential
attributes (1) Reference It is of something
(its "referent") (2) Purpose It has an
intended cognitive purpose with respect to its
referent (3) Cost-effectiveness It is more
cost-effective to use the model for this purpose
than to use the referent itself. Rothenberg, J.
1989. The nature of modeling. In L.E. Widman,
K.A. Laparo N.R. Nielson, Eds., Artificial
intelligence, simulation and modeling. New York
Wiley
72
  • Modeling Heuristics
  • Ravindran, Phillips, and Solberg (1987)
  • Do not build a complicated model when a simple
    one will suffice.
  • Beware of molding the problem to fit the
    technique.
  • The deduction phase of modeling must be conducted
    rigorously.
  • Models should be validated prior to
    implementation.
  • A model should never be taken too literally.
  • A model should neither be pressed to do, nor
    criticized for failing to do, that for which it
    was never intended.
  • Beware of overselling a model.
  • Some of the primary benefits of modeling are
    associated with the process of developing the
    model.
  • A model cannot be any better than the information
    that goes into it.
  • Models cannot replace decision makers.

73
Modeling Resources
  • Redish, E.F. and Smith K.A. 2008. Looking Beyond
    Content Skill Development for Engineers. Journal
    of Engineering Education Special Issue,
  • Smith, K.A., Starfield, A.M. 1993. Building
    models to solve problems. In J.H. Clarke A.W.
    Biddle, (Eds.), Teaching critical thinking
    Reports from across the curriculum. Englewood
    Cliffs, NJ Prentice-Hall, 254-263.
  • Smith, K.A. 1993. Designing a first year
    engineering course. In Mark E. Schlesinger
    Donald E. Mikkola (Eds.), Design Education in
    Metallurgical and Materials Engineering,
    Warrendale, PA The Minerals, Metals, and
    Materials Society, 59-73.
  • Smith, K.A., Wassyng, A. and Starfield, A.M.
    1983. Development of a systematic problem solving
    course An alternative to the use of case
    studies. In L.P. Grayson and J.M. Biedenbach
    (Eds.), Proceedings Thirteenth Annual Frontiers
    in Education Conference, Worcester, MA,
    Washington IEEE/ASEE, 42-46
  • Starfield, A.M., Smith, K.A., and Bleloch, A.
    1994. How to model it Problem solving for the
    computer age. Revised Edition - software added.
    Edina Interaction Book Company.

74
http//www.udel.edu/pbl/
75
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

76
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/o
    penbook/0309082927/html/
  • Design Backward Design Process (Felder Brent,
    Fink and Wiggins McTighe)
  • 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/PedagogiesOfEngagem
    entSummit.cfm
About PowerShow.com