Enhancing Learning Through Cooperative Pedagogy

Cooperative Learning as an

Effective Pedadogy

Doane College

August 19, 2014

K

a

r

l

A

.

S

m

i

t

h

STEM Education Center / Technological Leadership

Institute / Civil Engineering – University of Minnesota &

Engineering Education – Purdue University

ksmith@umn.edu - http://www.ce.umn.edu/~smith

E

s

s

e

n

t

i

a

l

S

t

u

d

e

n

t

L

e

a

r

n

i

n

g

O

u

t

c

o

m

e

s

o

f

t

h

e

U

n

d

e

r

g

r

a

d

u

a

t

e

C

o

r

e

•

 Through the liberal arts, students will:

–

Understand 

foundational areas of knowledge

–

Develop crucial 

intellectual skills

.

–

Build

 connections of knowledge

 across various

disciplines.

–

Adapt

 their liberal education to serve and to lead at all

levels of citizenship.

•

Important complementary 

habits of an

intellectual

and balanced life 

will be developed through the

depth and breadth of their entire collegiate

experience - curricular, co-curricular and

extracurricular

3

Session Layout

•

Welcome & Overview

•

Cooperative Learning

–

Rationale

–

Key Elements

•

Course Design Foundations

–

How People Learn

–

Understanding by Design

•

Applications of Cooperative Learning

Overall Goal

•

Build your knowledge of cooperative

learning and your repertoire of

cooperative learning strategies

4

5

Workshop Objectives

•

Participants will be able to :

–

Describe key features of cooperative learning and

effective, interactive strategies for facilitating learning

–

Summarize key elements of Course Design

Foundations

•

How People Learn (HPL)

•

Understanding by Design 

(UbD) process – Content

(outcomes) – Assessment – Pedagogy

–

Explain key features of and rationale for Cooperative

Learning

–

Identify connections between cooperative learning and

desired outcomes of courses and programs

•

Participants will begin applying key elements to

the design on a course, class session or learning

module

Reflection and Dialogue

•

I

n

d

i

v

i

d

u

a

l

l

y

r

e

f

l

e

c

t

o

n

y

o

u

r

f

a

v

o

r

i

t

e

r

a

t

i

o

n

a

l

e

f

o

r

E

n

g

a

g

e

d

P

e

d

a

g

o

g

i

e

s

,

s

u

c

h

a

s

C

o

o

p

e

r

a

t

i

v

e

L

e

a

r

n

i

n

g

.

W

r

i

t

e

f

o

r

a

b

o

u

t

1

m

i

n

u

t

e

–

Context/Audience? Who is the focus, e.g., students?

–

Claim? What is the nature of the rationale?

–

Evidence? Support for your claim

•

Discuss with your neighbor for about 2 minutes

–

Select/create a response to present to the whole

group if you are randomly selected

Seven Principles for Good Practice in

Undergraduate Education

•

Good practice in undergraduate education:

–

E

n

c

o

u

r

a

g

e

s

s

t

u

d

e

n

t

-

f

a

c

u

l

t

y

c

o

n

t

a

c

t

–

E

n

c

o

u

r

a

g

e

s

c

o

o

p

e

r

a

t

i

o

n

a

m

o

n

g

s

t

u

d

e

n

t

s

–

E

n

c

o

u

r

a

g

e

s

a

c

t

i

v

e

l

e

a

r

n

i

n

g

–

Gives prompt feedback

–

Emphasizes time on task

–

Communicates high expectations

–

R

e

s

p

e

c

t

s

d

i

v

e

r

s

e

t

a

l

e

n

t

s

a

n

d

w

a

y

s

o

f

l

e

a

r

n

i

n

g

7

Chickering & Gamson, June, 1987

http://learningcommons.evergreen.edu/pdf/fall1987.pdf

Discipline-Based Education

Research (DBER) Report Update

National Research Council

Summer 2012 – http://www.nap.edu/

catalog.php?record_id=13362

ASEE 

Prism Summer 2013

Discipline-Based

Education Research

Practitioner Guide

In Preparation

Coming 2014

Journal of Engineering Education

Editorial – October, 2013

“Reaching Students: What

Research Says About Effective

Instruction in Undergraduate

Science and Engineering”

http://serc.carleton.edu/index.html

10

Student Engagement Research Evidence

•

Perhaps the strongest conclusion that can be

made is the least surprising. Simply put, the

greater the student’s involvement or engagement

in academic work or in the academic experience

of college, the greater his or her level of

knowledge acquisition and general cognitive

development …(Pascarella and Terenzini, 2005).

•

Active and collaborative instruction coupled with

various means to encourage student engagement

invariably lead to better student learning

outcomes irrespective of academic discipline

(Kuh et al., 2005, 2007).

See Smith, et.al, 2005 and Fairweather, 2008, Linking Evidence and Promising

Practices in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)

Undergraduate Education - 

http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/Fairweather_CommissionedPaper.pdf

Engaged Pedagogies = Reduced Failure Rates

Evidence-based research on learning indicates that when students are

actively involved in their education they are more successful and less

likely to fail. A new PNAS report by Freeman et al., shows a significant

decrease of failure rate in active learning classroom compared to

traditional lecture

11

Freeman, Scott; Eddy, Sarah L.; McDonough, Miles; Smith, Michelle K.; Okoroafor, Nnadozie;

Jordt, Hannah; Wenderoth, Mary Pat; Active learning increases student performance in science,

engineering, and mathematics, 2014, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.

Lila M. Smith

Process Metallurgy

•

Dissolution Kinetics – liquid-solid

interface

•

Iron Ore Desliming – solid-solid

interface

•

Metal-oxide reduction roasting – gas-

solid interface

Dissolution Kinetics

•

Theory – Governing

Equation for Mass

Transport

•

Research – rotating

disk

•

Practice – leaching

of silver bearing

metallic copper &

printed circuit-board

waste

First Teaching Experience

•

Practice – Third-year course in

metallurgical reactions –

thermodynamics and kinetics

Engineering Education

•

Practice – Third-year course in

metallurgical reactions –

thermodynamics and kinetics

•

Research – ?

•

Theory – ?

Theory

Research

Evidence

Practice

University of Minnesota College of Education

Social, Psychological and Philosophical

Foundations of Education

•

Statistics, Measurement, Research Methodology

•

Assessment and Evaluation

•

Learning and Cognitive Psychology

•

Knowledge Acquisition, Artificial Intelligence,

Expert Systems

•

Development Theories

•

Motivation Theories

•

Social psychology of learning – student –

student interaction

Lila M. Smith

Cooperative Learning

•

Theory – Social Interdependence –

Lewin – Deutsch – Johnson & Johnson

•

Research – Randomized Design Field

Experiments

•

Practice – Formal Teams/Professor’s

Role

Theory

Research

Evidence

Practice

Cooperative Learning Introduced

to Engineering – 1981

•

Smith, K.A., Johnson, D.W.

and Johnson, R.T., 1981. The

use of cooperative learning

groups in engineering

education.  In L.P. Grayson

and J.M. Biedenbach (Eds.),

Proceedings Eleventh Annual

Frontiers in Education

Conference

, Rapid City, SD,

Washington:  IEEE/ASEE,

26‑32.

20

JEE December 1981

C

o

o

p

e

r

a

t

i

v

e

L

e

a

r

n

i

n

g

R

e

s

e

a

r

c

h

S

u

p

p

o

r

t

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

O

u

t

c

o

m

e

s

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

Johnson, D. W.,

Johnson, R. T., &

Smith, K. A. (2014).

Cooperative learning:

Improving university

instruction by basing

practice on validated

theory. Journal on

Excellence in College

Teaching, 

25

(3&4)

22

“

T

h

r

o

u

g

h

o

u

t

t

h

e

w

h

o

l

e

e

n

t

e

r

p

r

i

s

e

,

t

h

e

c

o

r

e

i

s

s

u

e

,

i

n

m

y

v

i

e

w

,

i

s

t

h

e

m

o

d

e

o

f

t

e

a

c

h

i

n

g

a

n

d

l

e

a

r

n

i

n

g

t

h

a

t

i

s

p

r

a

c

t

i

c

e

d

.

L

e

a

r

n

i

n

g

‘

a

b

o

u

t

’

t

h

i

n

g

s

d

o

e

s

n

o

t

e

n

a

b

l

e

s

t

u

d

e

n

t

s

t

o

a

c

q

u

i

r

e

t

h

e

a

b

i

l

i

t

i

e

s

a

n

d

u

n

d

e

r

s

t

a

n

d

i

n

g

t

h

e

y

w

i

l

l

n

e

e

d

f

o

r

t

h

e

t

w

e

n

t

y

-

f

i

r

s

t

c

e

n

t

u

r

y

.

W

e

n

e

e

d

n

e

w

p

e

d

a

g

o

g

i

e

s

o

f

e

n

g

a

g

e

m

e

n

t

t

h

a

t

w

i

l

l

t

u

r

n

o

u

t

t

h

e

k

i

n

d

s

o

f

r

e

s

o

u

r

c

e

f

u

l

,

e

n

g

a

g

e

d

w

o

r

k

e

r

s

a

n

d

c

i

t

i

z

e

n

s

t

h

a

t

A

m

e

r

i

c

a

n

o

w

r

e

q

u

i

r

e

s

.

”

R

u

s

s

E

d

g

e

r

t

o

n

(

r

e

f

l

e

c

t

i

n

g

o

n

h

i

g

h

e

r

e

d

u

c

a

t

i

o

n

p

r

o

j

e

c

t

s

f

u

n

d

e

d

b

y

t

h

e

P

e

w

M

e

m

o

r

i

a

l

T

r

u

s

t

)

http://www.asee.org/publications/jee/issueList.cfm?year=2005#January2005

Reflection and Dialogue

•

Individually reflect on your mental image of an

effective teacher. Write for about 1 minute.

–

Jot down words or phrases

–

Construct a figure or diagram

•

Discuss with your neighbor for about 2 minutes

–

Describe your mental image and talk about

similarities and differences

–

Select one Element, Image, Comment, Story, etc. that

you would like to present to the whole group if you are

randomly selected

•

Whole group discussion

24

T

e

a

c

h

e

r

M

e

n

t

a

l

I

m

a

g

e

s

A

b

o

u

t

T

e

a

c

h

i

n

g

-

A

x

e

l

r

o

d

(

1

9

7

3

)

Axelrod, J.  

The University Teacher as Artist. 

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1973.

25

Pedagogies of Engagement

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

27

The American College Teacher:

National Norms for 2007-2008

http://www.heri.ucla.edu/index.php

Undergraduate Teaching Faculty, 2011*

*Undergraduate Teaching Faculty. National Norms for the

2010-2011 HERI Faculty 

Survey, 

www.heri.ucla.edu/index.php

“

I

t

c

o

u

l

d

w

e

l

l

b

e

t

h

a

t

f

a

c

u

l

t

y

m

e

m

b

e

r

s

o

f

t

h

e

t

w

e

n

t

y

-

f

i

r

s

t

c

e

n

t

u

r

y

c

o

l

l

e

g

e

o

r

u

n

i

v

e

r

s

i

t

y

w

i

l

l

f

i

n

d

i

t

n

e

c

e

s

s

a

r

y

t

o

s

e

t

a

s

i

d

e

t

h

e

i

r

r

o

l

e

s

a

s

t

e

a

c

h

e

r

s

a

n

d

i

n

s

t

e

a

d

b

e

c

o

m

e

d

e

s

i

g

n

e

r

s

o

f

l

e

a

r

n

i

n

g

e

x

p

e

r

i

e

n

c

e

s

,

p

r

o

c

e

s

s

e

s

,

a

n

d

e

n

v

i

r

o

n

m

e

n

t

s

.

”

James Duderstadt, 1999

Nuclear Engineering Professor;  Former Dean,

Provost and President of the University of

Michigan

Course Design Foundations

Bransford, Brown & Cocking. 1999. 

How People Learn. 

National Academy Press.

Wiggins & McTighe, 2005. 

Understanding by Design, 2ed

. ASCD.

Science of Instruction (UbD)

Science of

Learning

(HPL)

How People Learn (HPL)

Bransford, Brown & Cocking. 1999. 

How people learn. 

National Academy Press.

•

Expertise implies (Ch. 2):

–

a set of cognitive and

metacognitive skills

–

an organized body of

knowledge that is deep

and contextualized

–

an ability to notice patterns

of information in a new

situation

–

flexibility in retrieving and

applying that knowledge to

a new problem

HPL

Framework

Understanding by Design

•

Stage 1. Identify Desired Results

–

Enduring understanding (enduring outcomes)

–

Important to know and do

–

Worth being familiar with

•

Stage 2. Determine Acceptable Evidence

•

Stage 3. Plan Learning Experiences  and

Instruction

•

Overall: Are the desired results,

assessments, and learning activities

ALIGNED?

Wiggins & McTighe, 1997, 2005.  

Understanding by Design

. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

•

Bransford, Vye and Bateman –

Creating High Quality Learning

Environments

1.

Students prior knowledge can help or hinder

learning

2.

How student organize knowledge influences how

they learn and apply what they know

3.

Students’ motivation determines, directs, and

sustains what they do to learn

4.

To develop mastery, students must acquire

component skills, practice integrating them, and

know when to apply what they have learned

5.

Goal-directed practice coupled with targeted

feedback enhances the quality of students’

learning

6.

Students’ current level of development  interacts

with the social, emotional, and intellectual climate

of the course to impact learning

7.

To become self-directed learners, students must

learn to monitor and adjust their approach to

learning

35

Active Learning: Cooperation in the

College Classroom

•

I

n

f

o

r

m

a

l

C

o

o

p

e

r

a

t

i

v

e

L

e

a

r

n

i

n

g

G

r

o

u

p

s

•

F

o

r

m

a

l

C

o

o

p

e

r

a

t

i

v

e

L

e

a

r

n

i

n

g

G

r

o

u

p

s

•

C

o

o

p

e

r

a

t

i

v

e

B

a

s

e

G

r

o

u

p

s

N

o

t

e

s

:

C

o

o

p

e

r

a

t

i

v

e

L

e

a

r

n

i

n

g

H

a

n

d

o

u

t

(

C

L

-

C

o

l

l

e

g

e

-

8

1

4

.

d

o

c

)

36

Book Ends on a Class Session

Smith, K.A. 2000. Going deeper: Formal small-group learning in large classes. Energizing large

classes: From small groups to learning communities. 

New Directions for Teaching and Learning

,

2000, 81, 25-46. [

NDTL81Ch3GoingDeeper.pdf

]

B

o

o

k

E

n

d

s

o

n

a

C

l

a

s

s

S

e

s

s

i

o

n

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?

38

Formulate-Share-Listen-Create

Informal Cooperative Learning Group

Introductory Pair Discussion of a

FOCUS QUESTION

1.

F

o

r

m

u

l

a

t

e

y

o

u

r

r

e

s

p

o

n

s

e

t

o

t

h

e

q

u

e

s

t

i

o

n

i

n

d

i

v

i

d

u

a

l

l

y

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

39

Informal CL (Book Ends on a Class Session) with Concept Tests

Physics

Eric Mazur - Harvard 

– 

http://galileo.harvard.edu

Peer Instruction – 

http://mazur.harvard.edu/research/detailspage.php?rowid=8

Richard Hake – http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/

Chemistry

Chemistry ConcepTests - UW Madison -  http://chemcollective.org/tests

Video: Making Lectures Interactive with ConcepTests

http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/archive/cl1/flag/cat/contests/contests7.htm

ModularChem Consortium 

– 

http://chemconnections.org/

STEMTEC

 - http://k12s.phast.umass.edu/stemtec/

Video: How Change Happens: Breaking the 

“

Teach as You Were Taught

”

Cycle 

– 

Films for the Humanities & Sciences – www.films.com

Harvard – Derek Bok Center

Thinking Together & From Questions to Concepts: Interactive Teaching in Physics

– 

http://bokcenter.harvard.edu/

40

http://groups.physics.umn.edu/physed/Research/MNModel/Model.html

Conceptual Understanding

http://groups.physics.umn.edu/physed/Research/MNModel/FCI.html

42

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.

Workshop Biology

Traditional passive lecture vs. “Workshop

biology”

Source: Udovic et al. 2002

I

n

f

o

r

m

a

l

C

o

o

p

e

r

a

t

i

v

e

L

e

a

r

n

i

n

g

G

r

o

u

p

s

Can be used at any time

Can be short term and ad hoc

May be used to break up a long lecture

P

r

o

v

i

d

e

s

a

n

o

p

p

o

r

t

u

n

i

t

y

f

o

r

s

t

u

d

e

n

t

s

t

o

p

r

o

c

e

s

s

m

a

t

e

r

i

a

l

t

h

e

y

h

a

v

e

b

e

e

n

l

i

s

t

e

n

i

n

g

t

o

(

C

o

g

n

i

t

i

v

e

R

e

h

e

a

r

s

a

l

)

Are especially effective in large lectures

Include "book ends" procedure

Are not as effective as Formal Cooperative Learning

or Cooperative Base Groups

S

t

r

a

t

e

g

i

e

s

f

o

r

E

n

e

r

g

i

z

i

n

g

L

a

r

g

e

C

l

a

s

s

e

s

:

F

r

o

m

S

m

a

l

l

G

r

o

u

p

s

t

o

L

e

a

r

n

i

n

g

C

o

m

m

u

n

i

t

i

e

s

:

Jean MacGregor,

James Cooper,

Karl Smith,

Pamela Robinson

New Directions for

Teaching and Learning

,

No. 

81

, 2000.

Jossey- Bass

47

48

Active Learning: Cooperation in the

College Classroom

•

I

n

f

o

r

m

a

l

C

o

o

p

e

r

a

t

i

v

e

L

e

a

r

n

i

n

g

G

r

o

u

p

s

•

F

o

r

m

a

l

C

o

o

p

e

r

a

t

i

v

e

L

e

a

r

n

i

n

g

G

r

o

u

p

s

•

C

o

o

p

e

r

a

t

i

v

e

B

a

s

e

G

r

o

u

p

s

See Cooperative Learning

Handout (CL College-912.doc)

Formal Cooperative Learning

Task Groups

50

Instructor'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

51

Decisions,Decisions

Group size?

Group selection?

Group member roles?

How long to leave groups together?

Arranging the room?

Providing materials?

Time allocation?

F

o

r

m

a

l

C

o

o

p

e

r

a

t

i

v

e

L

e

a

r

n

i

n

g

–

T

y

p

e

s

o

f

T

a

s

k

s

1.

J

i

g

s

a

w

–

L

e

a

r

n

i

n

g

n

e

w

c

o

n

c

e

p

t

u

a

l

/

p

r

o

c

e

d

u

r

a

l

m

a

t

e

r

i

a

l

2.

Peer Composition or Editing

3.

Reading Comprehension/Interpretation

4

.

P

r

o

b

l

e

m

S

o

l

v

i

n

g

,

P

r

o

j

e

c

t

,

o

r

P

r

e

s

e

n

t

a

t

i

o

n

5.

Review/Correct Homework

6.

Constructive Controversy

7

.

G

r

o

u

p

T

e

s

t

s

53

Cooperative Jigsaw

www.jigsaw.org/‎

JIGSAW SCHEDULE

COOPERATIVE GROUPS (3-4

members)

PREPARATION PAIRS

CONSULTING/SHARING PAIRS

TEACHING/LEARNING IN

COOPERATIVE GROUPS

WHOLE CLASS REVIEW

F

o

r

m

a

l

C

o

o

p

e

r

a

t

i

v

e

L

e

a

r

n

i

n

g

–

T

y

p

e

s

o

f

T

a

s

k

s

1.

J

i

g

s

a

w

–

L

e

a

r

n

i

n

g

n

e

w

c

o

n

c

e

p

t

u

a

l

/

p

r

o

c

e

d

u

r

a

l

m

a

t

e

r

i

a

l

2.

Peer Composition or Editing

3.

Reading Comprehension/Interpretation

4

.

P

r

o

b

l

e

m

S

o

l

v

i

n

g

,

P

r

o

j

e

c

t

,

o

r

P

r

e

s

e

n

t

a

t

i

o

n

5.

Review/Correct Homework

6.

Constructive Controversy

7

.

G

r

o

u

p

T

e

s

t

s

55

Cooperative Problem-Based Learning Format

TASK:  Solve the problem(s) or Complete the project.

INDIVIDUAL:  Develop ideas, Initial Model, Estimate, etc. 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 model and 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.

56

Challenge-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

C

h

a

l

l

e

n

g

e

-

B

a

s

e

d

I

n

s

t

r

u

c

t

i

o

n

w

i

t

h

t

h

e

L

e

g

a

c

y

C

y

c

l

e

57

https://repo.vanth.org/portal/public-content/star-legacy-cycle/star-legacy-cycle

58

Cooperative Problem-Based Learning

K

a

r

l

A

.

S

m

i

t

h

Engineering Education – Purdue University

Civil Engineering - University of Minnesota

ksmith@umn.edu

http://www.ce.umn.edu/~smith

Estimation Problem

First Course Design Experience

 UMN – Institute of Technology

•

Thinking Like an

Engineer

•

Problem

Identification

•

Problem

Formulation

•

Problem

Representation

•

Problem Solving

Problem-Based Learning

•

Task Recorder

•

Skeptic/Prober

•

Process Recorder

T

e

c

h

n

i

c

a

l

E

s

t

i

m

a

t

i

o

n

P

r

o

b

l

e

m

TASK:

INDIVIDUAL: Quick Estimate (10 seconds).  Note strategy.

COOPERATIVE: Improved Estimate (~5 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.

62

Group Reports

•

Estimate

–

Group 1

–

Group 2

–

. . .

•

Strategy used to arrive at estimate –

assumptions, model, method, etc.

63

Real World

Model World

Model

V

r

/V

b

Calc

65

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.

Problem-Based Learning

66

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

Group Processing

 Plus/Delta Format

Plus (+)

Things That Group Did Well

Delta (

∆)

Things Group Could Improve

C

o

o

p

e

r

a

t

i

v

e

L

e

a

r

n

i

n

g

i

s

i

n

s

t

r

u

c

t

i

o

n

t

h

a

t

i

n

v

o

l

v

e

s

p

e

o

p

l

e

w

o

r

k

i

n

g

i

n

t

e

a

m

s

t

o

a

c

c

o

m

p

l

i

s

h

a

c

o

m

m

o

n

g

o

a

l

,

u

n

d

e

r

c

o

n

d

i

t

i

o

n

s

t

h

a

t

i

n

v

o

l

v

e

b

o

t

h

p

o

s

i

t

i

v

e

i

n

t

e

r

d

e

p

e

n

d

e

n

c

e

(

a

l

l

m

e

m

b

e

r

s

m

u

s

t

c

o

o

p

e

r

a

t

e

t

o

c

o

m

p

l

e

t

e

t

h

e

t

a

s

k

)

a

n

d

i

n

d

i

v

i

d

u

a

l

a

n

d

g

r

o

u

p

a

c

c

o

u

n

t

a

b

i

l

i

t

y

(

e

a

c

h

m

e

m

b

e

r

i

s

a

c

c

o

u

n

t

a

b

l

e

f

o

r

t

h

e

c

o

m

p

l

e

t

e

f

i

n

a

l

o

u

t

c

o

m

e

)

.

K

e

y

C

o

n

c

e

p

t

s

•Positive Interdependence

•Individual and Group Accountability

•Face-to-Face Promotive Interaction

•Teamwork Skills

•Group Processing

69

Active Learning: Cooperation in the

College Classroom

•

I

n

f

o

r

m

a

l

C

o

o

p

e

r

a

t

i

v

e

L

e

a

r

n

i

n

g

G

r

o

u

p

s

•

F

o

r

m

a

l

C

o

o

p

e

r

a

t

i

v

e

L

e

a

r

n

i

n

g

G

r

o

u

p

s

•

C

o

o

p

e

r

a

t

i

v

e

B

a

s

e

G

r

o

u

p

s

See Cooperative Learning

Handout (CL College-912.doc)

70

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

Edmonson-Competitive_Advantage_of_Learning-HBR-2008.pdf

Edmonson-Competitive_Advantage_of_Learning-HBR-2008.pdf

Designing and Implementing

Cooperative Learning

•

Think like a designer

•

Ground practice in robust theoretical

framework

•

Start small, start early and iterate

•

Celebrate the successes; problem-solve

the failures

74

75

76

Resources

•

Design Framework – How People Learn (HPL) & Understanding by Design (UdB) Process

–

Ambrose, S., et.al. 2010. 

How learning works: 7 research based principles for smart 

teaching. Jossey-Bass

–

Bransford, John, Vye, Nancy, and Bateman, Helen. 2002. Creating High-Quality Learning Environments:

Guidelines from Research on How People Learn. 

The Knowledge Economy and Postsecondary Education:

Report of a Workshop

. National Research Council. Committee on the Impact of the Changing Economy of the

Education System. P.A. Graham and N.G. Stacey (Eds.). Center for Education. Washington, DC: National

Academy Press. 

http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309082927/html/

–

Pellegrino, J. 2006. 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.

–

Streveler, R.A., Smith, K.A. and Pilotte, M. 2012. Content, Assessment and Pedagogy (CAP): An Integrated

Engineering Design Approach. In Dr. Khairiyah Mohd Yusof, Dr. Shahrin Mohammad, Dr. Naziha Ahmad Azli,

Dr. Mohamed Noor Hassan, Dr. Azlina Kosnin and Dr. Sharifah Kamilah Syed Yusof (Eds.). 

Outcome-Based

Education and Engineering Curriculum: Evaluation, Assessment and Accreditation

, Universiti Teknologi

Malaysia, Malaysia [

Streveler-Smith-Pilotte_OBE_Chapter-CAP-v11.pdf

]

–

Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. 2005. 

Understanding by Design: Expanded Second Edition

. Prentice Hall.

•

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.

•

Cooperative Learning

–

Cooperative Learning (Johnson, Johnson & Smith) - 

Smith web site – 

www.ce.umn.edu/~smith

–

Smith (2010) Social nature of learning: From small groups to learning communities. New Directions for

Teaching and Learning, 2010, 123, 11-22 [

NDTL-123-2-Smith-Social_Basis_of_Learning-.pdf

]

–

Smith, Sheppard, Johnson & Johnson (2005) Pedagogies of Engagement [

Smith-

Pedagogies_of_Engagement.pdf

]

–

Johnson, Johnson & Smith. 1998. Cooperative learning returns to college: What evidence is there that it

works? Change, 1998, 30 (4), 26-35. [

CLReturnstoCollege.pdf

]

•

Other Resources

–

University of Delaware PBL web site – 

www.udel.edu/pbl

–

PKAL – Pedagogies of Engagement – 

http://www.pkal.org/activities/PedagogiesOfEngagementSummit.cfm

–

Fairweather (2008) Linking Evidence and Promising Practices in Science, Technology, Engineering, and

Mathematics (STEM) Undergraduate Education

 - 

http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/Fairweather_CommissionedPaper.pdf