Design and Implementation of Active and Cooperative Learning
- Slides: 85
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
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
…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/Eng. Flex%20 report/download/Eng. Flex%20 Report. pdf 3
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 & Mc. Tighe Backward Design Approach – Course, Class or Lab Session, and Learning Module Design: From Objectives and Evidence to Instruction • Wrap-up and Next Steps 4
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
Session Summary (Minute Paper) Reflect on the session: 1. What were the most important points for you? 2. What is one thing you will take away? 3. What questions do you have? 4. Pace: Too slow 1. . 5 Too fast 5. Relevance: Little 1. . . 5 Lots 6. Format: Ugh 1. . . 5 Ah 6
Transportation Education June 2009 – Workshop 1 Q 4 – Pace: Too slow 1. . 5 Too fast (2. 8) Q 5 – Relevance: Little 1. . . 5 Lots (3. 8) Q 6 – Format: Ugh 1. . . 5 Ah (3. 5) 7
MOT 8221 – Spring 2009 – Session 1 Q 4 – Pace: Too slow 1. . 5 Too fast (3. 3) Q 5 – Relevance: Little 1. . . 5 Lots (4. 2) Q 6 – Format: Ugh 1. . . 5 Ah (4. 4) 8
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
Background Knowledge Survey • Familiarity with – Approaches to Course Design • Wiggins & Mc. Tighe – 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
MOT 8221 – 2009 Background Survey PM Q 1 IE/OR Q 6 PMI Q 2 Mod/Sim Q 7 KM Q 3 CAS Q 8 Leadership Q 4 Mgmt. Sci Q 9 Eng. Sys Q 5 6 Sigma Q 10 11 N = 30/30
Spread Q 1 PM Q 2 Stat Q 3 Mod/Sim Q 4 DB Q 5 Prog Q 6 KM/ES Q 7 N = 30/30 12
Effective Course Design Bloom’s Taxonomy ABET EC 2000 (Felder & Brent, 1999) Goals and Objectives Course-specific goals & objectives Technology Cooperative learning Students Instruction Lectures Labs Classroom assessment techniques Assessment Other experiences Tests 13 Other measures
CAP Design Process Flowchart Integrated Course Design (Fink, 2003) Initial Design Phase Start Context Assessment Pedagogy No C&A&P Alignment? Yes End Backward Design Content 1. Situational Factors 2. Learning Goals 3. Feedback and Assessment 4. Teaching/Learning Activities 5. Integration
CAP Design Process (Shawn’s Model) Start Context Content gy go da Pe As se ssm en t Cloud of alignment End
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
Designing Learning Environments Based on HPL (How People Learn)
Backward Design Wiggins & Mc. Tighe Stage 1. Identify Desired Results Stage 2. Determine Acceptable Evidence Stage 3. Plan Learning Experiences and Instruction Wiggins, Grant and Mc. Tighe, Jay. 1998. Understanding by Design. Alexandria, VA: ASCD
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?
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
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 & Mc. Tighe)
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) 1. Can we believe our eyes? 2. Lessons from thin air 3. Under construction 4. Teaching & Understanding - http: //www. daimi. au. dk/~brabrand/short-film/index-gv. html
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
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 & Mc. Tighe, 1998) Taxonomy of significant learning (Dee Fink, 2003) 24
The Cognitive Process Dimension Remember Understand Apply Analyze Evaluate Create 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 25 Imbrie and Brophy, 2007
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 26 life-long learning skills into learning experiences.
Lila M. Smith
Pedago-pathologies Amnesia Fantasia Inertia Lee Shulman – MSU Med School – PBL Approach (late 60 s – early 70 s); 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.
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
Lila M. Smith
Pedagogies of Engagement 31
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
Cooperative Learning • Positive Interdependence • Individual and Group Accountability • Face-to-Face Promotive Interaction • Teamwork Skills • Group Processing
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 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
Faculty interest in higher levels of inquiry in engineering education • 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 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.
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
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
Individual & Group Accountability • ? 40
41 http: //www. ce. umn. edu/~smith/docs/Smith-CL%20 Handout%2008. pdf
Book Ends on a Class Session 42
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. 44
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. 45
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 46
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
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 48
MOT 8221 – Spring 2009 – Session 1 Q 4 – Pace: Too slow 1. . 5 Too fast (3. 3) Q 5 – Relevance: Little 1. . . 5 Lots (4. 2) Q 6 – Format: Ugh 1. . . 5 Ah (4. 4) 49
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: Derek Bok Center – www. fas. harvard. edu/~bok_cen/ 50
Richard Hake (Interactive engagement vs traditional methods) http: //www. physics. indiana. edu/~hake/ Traditional (lecture) Interactive (active/cooperative) <g> = Concept Inventory Gain/Total
52
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 53 (Percent) Pretest 60. 00 70. 00 80. 00
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. 54
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
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) 56
Formal Cooperative Learning Task Groups
http: //www. aacu. org/advocacy/leap/documents/Re 8097 abcombined. pdf 58
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. 59
Teamwork Skills • Communication • Listening and Persuading • Decision Making • Conflict Management • Leadership • Trust and Loyalty 60
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 62
Characteristics of Effective Teams • ? 63
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) 65 https: //research. wjh. harvard. edu/TDS/
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 66
Formal Cooperative Learning – Types of Tasks 1. Jigsaw – Learning new conceptual/procedural material 2. Peer Composition or Editing 3. Reading Comprehension/Interpretation – Read the paper/chapter and answer a set of questions 4. Problem Solving, Project, or Presentation 5. Review/Correct Homework 6. Constructive Academic Controversy 7. Group Tests – Individual exam followed by group exam
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 68
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 69
Kolb’s Experiential Learning Cycle Concrete Experience Testing implications of concepts in new situations Observation and Reflections Formulation of abstract concepts and generalizations
5 E Learning Cycle Model • Engage • Explore • Explain • Elaborate • Evaluate http: //faculty. mwsu. edu/west/maryann. coe/inquire/inquiry. htm
Problem-Based Learning START Apply it Problem posed Learn it Identify what we need to know 72
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, 73 answers, and strategies with another group.
74 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 75
Session Summary (Minute Paper) Reflect on the session: 1. What were the most important points for you? 2. What is one thing you would be willing to try? 3. What questions do you have? 4. Pace: Too slow 1. . 5 Too fast 5. Relevance: Little 1. . . 5 Lots 6. Format: Ugh 1. . . 5 Ah 76
MSU – Spring Institute 2008 – Session 1 Q 4 – Pace: Too slow 1. . 5 Too fast (2. 8) Q 5 – Relevance: Little 1. . . 5 Lots (4. 3) Q 6 – Format: Ugh 1. . . 5 Ah (4. 3) 77
Backward Design Model Wiggins & Mc. Tighe Stage 1. Identify Desired Results Stage 2. Determine Acceptable Evidence Stage 3. Plan Learning Experiences and Instruction Wiggins, Grant and Mc. Tighe, Jay. 1998. Understanding by Design. Alexandria, VA: ASCD 78
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? 79
Backward Design Approach: • Desired Results (Outcomes, Objectives, Learning Goals) – 5 minute university • Evidence (Assessment) – Learning Taxonomies • Plan Instruction – Cooperative Learning Planning Format & Forms 80
The Cognitive Process Dimension Remember Understand Apply Analyze Evaluate Create 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 A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). 81
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 & Mc. Tighe, 1998) Taxonomy of significant learning (Fink, 2003) A taxonomic trek: From student learning to faculty scholarship (Shulman, 2002) 82
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 83
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? 84
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, Dee 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 • 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 85
- Collaborative learning vs cooperative learning
- Accessible learning experience design and implementation
- Passive learning vs active learning
- Active learning reinforcement learning
- Cooperative vs collaborative learning
- Tgt cooperative learning
- Cooperative vs collaborative
- Pedagogia non direttiva rogers
- Think pair share cooperative learning
- Pies cooperative learning
- Pies cooperative learning
- Compito di realtà esempio
- Pigs face cooperative learning
- What is three step interview
- Cooperative learning activities examples
- Griglia di osservazione cooperative learning
- Evaluation continuum
- Griglia di osservazione cooperative learning
- Marzano cooperative learning
- Formal cooperative learning
- Cooperative learning institute
- Types of cooperative learning
- Types of learning model
- Purpose of teaching method
- Classificazione delle metodologie didattiche
- Instructional strategies marzano
- Formal cooperative learning
- Cooperative learning round robin
- Pies principles
- Cuadro comparativo e-learning m-learning b-learning
- 3 to 8 decoder truth table
- Primary vs secondary active transport
- Primary active transport vs secondary active transport
- Elearning project implementation
- Network security design
- Uiecu
- Cobit foundation exam question
- Pilot intune
- Pearson physics
- Channel design and implementation
- Advanced compiler design and implementation
- Database systems: design, implementation, and management
- Distributed shared memory
- Design and implementation of data plane.
- Implementation in software engineering
- System implementation and operation
- Design and implementation of e secure transaction
- Database system design implementation and management
- Implementation design principles
- What is passive reinforcement learning
- What is active and passive reinforcement learning
- Passive and active learning
- What is the difference between passive and active learning
- Passive learner
- Passive reinforcement
- Climbs insurance logo
- Contractual brief example
- Badilika cooperative society ltd
- Do cooperative banks maintain crr and slr
- Active learning strategies to promote critical thinking
- Active learning definition
- Nadine kira first meeting
- Principles of active learning
- Principles of active learning
- Montessori active learning
- Cognitive theory child development
- 5 ingredients of active learning
- Thinking like an engineer an active learning approach
- Importance weighted active learning
- Tc=fc+vc example
- Computer science active learning
- Active learning strategies to promote critical thinking
- Quescussion
- Bioengineering flipped classroom
- Deep learning spectroscopy
- Technology enabled active learning
- Chemical engineering keywords
- Active learning activities
- Active learning activities
- Active learning activities
- Active learning
- Active vs passive learning
- Agnostic active learning
- Ohio valley educational cooperative
- Cooperative model example
- Cooperative governance