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@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] 2

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 3

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 N = 29/30

9. 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 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

13. 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

14. 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 14

15. 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 15

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? 16

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

18. The Cognitive Process Dimension The Knowledge Dimension A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). 18

19. 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 (Fink, 2003) A taxonomic trek: From student learning to faculty scholarship (Shulman, 2002) 19

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 20

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? 21

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. 24

25. Lila M. Smith

26. Pedagogies of Engagement 26

27. 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

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

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

30. Cooperative Learning •Positive Interdependence •Individual 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 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 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) 33

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 • ? 35

36. 36 http://www.ce.umn.edu/~smith/docs/Smith-CL%20Handout%2008.pdf

37. Book Ends on a Class Session 37

38. Formal Cooperative Learning Task Groups

39. http://www.aacu.org/advocacy/leap/documents/Re8097abcombined.pdfhttp://www.aacu.org/advocacy/leap/documents/Re8097abcombined.pdf 39

40. Engineering Total Design – 36% Computer applications – 31% Management – 29% Civil/Architectural Management – 45% Design – 39% Computer applications – 20% Top Three Main Engineering Work Activities Burton, L., Parker, L, & LeBold, W. 1998. U.S. engineering career trends. ASEE Prism, 7(9), 18-21. 40

41. Teamwork Skills • Communication • Listening and Persuading • Decision Making • Conflict Management • Leadership • Trust and Loyalty 41

42. Teamwork 42

43. Characteristics of Effective Teams • ? 43

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 --Katzenbach & 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/ 45

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 team’s 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 48

49. 49

50. Group Processing Plus/Delta Format Delta (Δ) Things Group Could Improve Plus (+) Things That Group Did Well