1 / 17

Facilitating Collaborative Learning in Chemical Engineering: The Value of Student-Led Makerspaces and Peer Interactions

This article explores the value of student-led makerspaces and peer interactions in facilitating collaborative learning in chemical engineering. It discusses the benefits of collaborative learning and how student-led makerspaces can create more opportunities for independent learning. The article also presents research findings on the effectiveness of these approaches in enhancing knowledge facilitation, team efficacy, and academic self-efficacy.

velasquez
Télécharger la présentation

Facilitating Collaborative Learning in Chemical Engineering: The Value of Student-Led Makerspaces and Peer Interactions

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. Facilitating collaborative learning in Chemical Engineering: The value of student-led makerspaces and peer interactions in team-based projects Marsha Maraj Senior Strategic Teaching Fellow, Department of Chemical Engineering Talking Teaching 20th February 2019

  2. Talking Teaching 20th February 2019 • Value • How do we define value? • Students often have their own ideas of what contributes to an effective learning experience • We focus primarily on the students’ perceptions of their experiences • Collaborative Learning • students learning with and from each other [1] • valuable source of self-efficacy, motivation, critical thinking skills and active learning [2] • create more space in the curriculum • shape and form • classroom activities • independent learning opportunities • 1. Peer interactions in team-based projects • 2. Student-led makerspaces [1] Centre for Teaching Innovation, “Collaborative Learning,” teaching.cornell.edu, para. 1, [Online]. Available: https://teaching.cornell.edu/teaching-resources/engaging-students/collaborative-learning. [Accessed Dec. 17, 2018] [2] B. Coleman and M. Lang, Collaboration Across the Curriculum: A Disciplined Approach to Developing Team Skills, Proceedings of the SIGCSE '12: The 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, North Carolina, USA, February 29 - March 03, 2012, pp. 277 -282. 2

  3. Peer interactions in team-based projectsStaff partners: Colin Hale, Klaus Hellgardt and Andreas Kogelbauer Talking Teaching 20th February 2019 3

  4. Talking Teaching 20th February 2019 Intensive and immersive learning environments Collaborative learning can be enhanced when students immerse themselves in the task with limited distractions from other modules [3] • Project-based • block delivery (PBBD) • modules are delivered entirely in compressed project blocks across 1 or 2 weeks • student-centred • based on collaborative approaches such as problem- based learning [3] M. F. Shiratuddin and T. Sulbaran, Development of Immersive Learning in a Virtual Reality Environment (ILVRE) system to assist Construction Education, Proceedings of 9th International Conference on Engineering Education, San Juan, Puerto Rico, July 23 – 28, 2006, pp. 1 – 5. [4] B. W. Tuckman and M. A. Jensen, Stages of small-group development revisited, Group & Organization Studies, 2 (4), 1977, pp. 419 – 427. 4

  5. Talking Teaching 20th February 2019 Mechanical Design Project • core module • taught to third-year CE undergraduate students • 2 weeks duration • randomly-assigned teams of 5 or 6 across • content is generally unfamiliar • taught using PBL Within the context of a two-week PBBD module: To what extent do students believe that their interactions have resulted in academic self-efficacy, knowledge facilitation and team efficacy? 5

  6. Talking Teaching 20th February 2019 Research Methodology We used a questionnaire which consisted of 25 descriptors (items) to evaluate students’ feedback at the end of PBBD process. • These were mapped to the 3 main constructs of: • team efficacy • knowledge facilitation • academic self-efficacy. Team efficacy and knowledge facilitation were measured using 7-point Likert scale. Academic self-efficacy was measured through efficacy scales ranging from 0 to 100. 6

  7. Talking Teaching 20th February 2019 Results and Conclusions: Selected Analysis • Strong perception of high levels of knowledge facilitation as well as team and self-efficacies • Students were able to • successfully negotiate unfamiliar content together and were able to learn new concepts with and from each other • were able to reach the performing team stage • SPSS was used to analyse the results • 44 respondents out of a class size of 110 students 7

  8. Talking Teaching 20th February 2019 Results and Conclusions: Correlations 8

  9. Talking Teaching 20th February 2019 Future work on PBBD • This information is particularly valuable for planning future module design within our CE programme in which many modules are team-based • can allow us introduce new- and strengthen existing PBBD-type modules within our programmes • move from traditional lecture-based semesters to more immersive, intensive and dedicated weekly project sessions • better support and manage student workloads 9

  10. Facilitating collaborative (and independent) learning using student-led makerspacesStudent partners: Nikolaos Kalogeropoulos and Pierre Walker Staff support: Colin Hale, Andrew Macey and Umang Shah Talking Teaching 20th February 2019 10

  11. Talking Teaching 20th February 2019 • Student-led makerspaces • makerspaces created and developed solely by students • generally outside of the university setting • with minimal faculty support • A makerspace [5] is: • learning environment • where students pursue projects • using advanced technologies • while collaborating with peers in a community of makers. Prevalence of affordable 3D printers (and associated technologies) has meant that students are no longer physically constrained to university workshops and labs [5] K. Oliver, “Professional development considerations for makerspace leaders, part one: Addressing “what?” and “why?”,” Tech Trends, 60 (2), 2016, pp. 160-166. 11

  12. Talking Teaching 20th February 2019 • We examine the experiences of two undergraduate students: • who have created a student-led maker space • based on interdisciplinary collaboration • to develop a working prototype of a 3D printed modular separation column • to see “how the theory they had been taught could be transformed practically” • this type of activity can best be described as an unguided independent learning situation [6] [6] M. Cukurova, J. Bennett and I. Abrahams, “Students’ Knowledge Acquisition and Ability to Apply Knowledge into Different Science Contexts in Two Different Independent Learning Settings,” Research in Science and Technological Education, 36 (1), 2018, pp. 17-34. 12

  13. Talking Teaching 20th February 2019 Can we embed it? Why is this important? • We find that students pursuing unguided independent learning opportunities through the creation of maker spaces is not an isolated event • The tendency to be involved in such activities is a result of the students’ enhanced achievement goal orientations Based on interviews and questionnaires, students and staff had said that student-led makerspaces: • are ‘educationally valuable’ • fosters interdisciplinary collaborative learning • encourages entrepreneurship • promotes independent and life-long learning 13

  14. Talking Teaching 20th February 2019 What does it mean for us and how can we support these initiatives? • Managing a small number of student-led makerspaces is potentially easy and feasible • Larger numbers however require a careful consideration of resources • which for some departments may be already constrained during routine academic year activities • The production of a working prototype required the support from academic and technical staff • Academic and technical expertise was used to fine-tune and improve selected design variables • Technical support: setting up lab space, ensuring health and safety etc • Resources and funding 14

  15. Talking Teaching 20th February 2019 Final conclusions • Examined two types of collaborative learning projects • Project-based block delivery is associated with high levels of knowledge facilitation as well as team and self-efficacies • Useful to direct future module design • Student-led makerspaces are • educationally valuable, encourages entrepreneurship and promotes life-long learning • effective management can be potentially challenging in the areas of academic and technical staff access, funding and laboratory scheduling 15

  16. Talking Teaching 20th February 2019 References [1] Centre for Teaching Innovation, “Collaborative Learning,” teaching.cornell.edu, para. 1, [Online]. Available: https://teaching.cornell.edu/teaching-resources/engaging-students/collaborative-learning. [Accessed Dec. 17, 2018] [2] B. Coleman and M. Lang, Collaboration Across the Curriculum: A Disciplined Approach to Developing Team Skills, Proceedings of the SIGCSE '12: The 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, North Carolina, USA, February 29 - March 03, 2012, pp. 277 -282 [3] M. F. Shiratuddin and T. Sulbaran, Development of Immersive Learning in a Virtual Reality Environment (ILVRE) system to assist Construction Education, Proceedings of 9th International Conference on Engineering Education, San Juan, Puerto Rico, July 23 – 28, 2006, pp. 1 – 5. [4] B. W. Tuckman and M. A. Jensen, Stages of small-group development revisited, Group & Organization Studies, 2 (4), 1977, pp. 419 – 427. [5] K. Oliver, “Professional development considerations for makerspace leaders, part one: Addressing “what?” and “why?”,” Tech Trends, 60 (2), 2016, pp. 160-166. [6] M. Cukurova, J. Bennett and I. Abrahams, “Students’ Knowledge Acquisition and Ability to Apply Knowledge into Different Science Contexts in Two Different Independent Learning Settings,” Research in Science and Technological Education, 36 (1), 2018, pp. 17-34. 16

  17. Thank you for your kind attention.Any questions or comments? Talking Teaching 20th February 2019 17

More Related