Differentiated overt learning activities for effective instruction in engineering classrooms

Journal of Engineering Education

Volumn 102, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 346-374

  Menekse, Muhsin ^a   Stump, Glenda S ^b   Krause, Stephen ^c   Chi, Michelene T H ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

^b MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^c ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Active learning; Engineering learning; Instructional methods

Indexed keywords

ACTIVE LEARNING; ACTIVE LEARNING METHODS; ENGINEERING CLASSROOMS; ENGINEERING LEARNING; INSTRUCTIONAL METHODS; INTERACTIVE ACTIVITIES; MATERIALS SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING; STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES;

ENGINEERING; STUDENTS;

ENGINEERING EDUCATION;

EID: 84885900408     PISSN: 10694730     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/jee.20021     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Blanchard, M. R., Southerland, S. A., Osborne, J. W., Sampson, V. D., Annetta, L. A., & Granger, E. M. (2010). Is inquiry possible in light of accountability?: A quantitative comparison of the relative effectiveness of guided inquiry and verification laboratory instruction. Science Education, 94, 577-616.
2. Burleson, W., Ganz, A., & Harris, I. (2001). Educational innovations in multimedia systems. Journal of Engineering Education, 90(1), 21-31.
3. Callister, W. D. (2006). Materials science and engineering: An introduction (7th ed.) New York, NY: Wiley.
4. Chen, H., Lattuca, L., & Hamilton, E. (2008). Conceptualizing engagement: Contributions of faculty to student engagement in engineering. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 339-353.
5. Chi, M. T. H. (2000). Self-explaining expository texts: The dual process of generating inferences and repairing mental models. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (pp. 161-238). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
6. Chi, M. T. H. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), 73-105.
7. Chi, M. T. H., & Wylie, R. (under review). Differentiating four levels of engagement in learning: The ICAP hypothesis.
8. Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M. H., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439-477.
9. Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145-182.
10. Clark, D. B., D'Angelo, C. M., & Menekse, M. (2009). Initial structuring of online discussions to improve learning and argumentation: Incorporating students' own explanations as seed comments versus an augmented-preset approach to seeding discussions. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(4), 321-333.
11. Colliver, J. A. (2000). Effectiveness of problem-based learning curricula: Research and theory. Academic Medicine, 75(3), 259-266.
12. Hausmann, R. G. M. (2006). Why do elaborative dialogs lead to effective problem solving and deep learning? In R. Sun & N. Miyake (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Annual Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1465-1469). Alpha, NJ: Sheridan.
13. Heller, R. S., Beil, C., Dam, K., & Haerum, B. (2010). Student and faculty perceptions of engagement in engineering. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(3), 253-261.
14. Higley, K., & Marianno, C. (2001). Making engineering education fun. Journal of Engineering Education, 90(1), 105-107.
15. Hundley, S. A. (2007). A comparative study of traditional lecture methods and interactive lecture methods in introductory geology courses for non-science majors at the college level (Doctoral dissertation). The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH. Retrieved from ProQuest. (UMI No. 3286820)
16. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. (1991) Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom, Edina, MN: Interaction.
17. Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.
18. Klahr, D., & Nigam, M. (2004). The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction. Psychological Science, 15(10), 661-667.
19. Klimoski, R., & Mohammed, S. (1994). Team mental model: Construct or metaphor? Journal of Management, 20(2), 403-437.
20. Lambert, N., & McCombs, B. (1998). How students learn: Reforming schools through learner-centered education. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
21. Lederman, J. S., Lederman, N. G., & Wickman, P.-O. (2008). An international, systematic investigation of the relative effects of inquiry and direct instruction: A replication study. Paper presented at the annual conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Baltimore, MD.
22. Lederman, N., Lederman, J., Wickman, P. O., & Lager-Nyqvist, L. (2007). Development of a valid and reliable protocol for the assessment of early childhood students' conceptions of nature of science and scientific inquiry. Paper presented at the annual conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.
23. Lin, C., & Tsai, C. (2009). The relationship between students' conceptions of learning engineering and their preferences for classroom and laboratory learning environments. Journal of Engineering Education, 98, 193-204.
24. Lott, G. (1983). The effect of inquiry teaching and advance organizers upon student outcomes in science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(5), 437-451.
25. Martin, M. (2009). The effect of active techniques combined with didactic lecture on student achievement (Doctoral dissertation). Arkansas State University, Jonesboro, AR. Retrieved from ProQuest. (UMI No. 1467105)
26. Mayer, R. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59(1), 14-19.
27. Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons' responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50(9), 741-749.
28. Minner, D., Levy, A., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry based science instruction - What is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474-496.
29. Montpas, M. M. (2004). Comparison of "jeopardy" game versus lecture on associate degree nursing students' achievement and retention of geriatric nursing concepts (Doctoral dissertation). Wayne State University, Detroit, MI. Retrieved from ProQuest. (UMI No. 3151328)
30. National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
31. Newell, J. (2009). Essentials of modern materials science and engineering. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
32. Osman, M. (2008a). Observation can be as effective as action in problem solving. Cognitive Science, 32, 162-183.
33. Osman, M. (2008b). Positive transfer and negative transfer/antilearning of problem-solving skills. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137, 97-115.
34. Pendergrass, N., Kowalczyk, R., Dowd, J., Laoulache, R., Nelles, W., Golen, J., & Fowler, E. (2001). Improving first-year engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 90(1), 33-41.
35. Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93, 223-232.
36. Prince, M., & Felder, R. (2006). Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions, comparisons, and research bases. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 123-137.
37. Purzer, S. (2011). The relationship between team discourse, self-efficacy, and individual achievement: A sequential mixed-methods study. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(4), 655-679.
38. Rittle-Johnson, B. (2006). Promoting transfer: Effects of self-explanation and direct instruction. Child Development, 77, 1-15.
39. Roscoe, R. D., & Chi, M. T. H. (2007). Understanding tutor learning: Knowledge-building and knowledge-telling in peer tutors' explanations and questions. Review of Educational Research, 77, 534-574.
40. Sadler, K. C. (2002). The effectiveness of cooperative learning as an instructional strategy to increase biological literacy and academic achievement in a large, nonmajors biology class (Doctoral dissertation). Tennessee State University, Nashville, TN. Retrieved from ProQuest. (UMI No. 3061781)
41. Sampson, V., & Clark, D. B. (2009). The impact of collaboration on the outcomes of argumentation. Science Education, 93(3), 448-484.
42. Schroeder, C., Scott, T., Tolson, H., Huang, T., & Lee, Y. (2007). A meta analysis of national research: Effects of teaching strategies on student achievement in science in the United States. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(10), 1436-1460.
43. Shooter, S., & McNeill, M. (2002). Interdisciplinary collaborative learning in mechatronics at Bucknell University. Journal of Engineering Education, 91(3), 339-344.
44. Smith, K., Sheppard, S., Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (2005). Pedagogies of engagement: Classroom-based practices. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 87-101.
45. Starrett, S., & Morcos, M. (2001). Hands-on, minds-on electric power education. Journal of Engineering Education, 90(1), 93-100.
46. Stull, A. T., & Mayer, R. E. (2007). Learning by doing versus learning by viewing: Three experimental comparisons of learner-generated versus author-provided graphic organizers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(4), 808-820.
47. Terenzini, P., Cabrera, A., Colbeck, C., Parente, J., & Bjorklund, S. (2001). Collaborative learning vs. lecture/discussion: Students' reported learning gains. Journal of Engineering Education, 90(1), 123-130.
48. Wilson, P. N. (1999). Active exploration of a virtual environment does not promote orientation or memory for objects. Environment and Behavior, 31(6), 752-763.