High-Quality Learning Environments for Engineering Design: Using Tablet PCs and Guidelines from Research on How People Learn

Enrique Palou ,
Enrique Palou
Contact Enrique Palou

High-Quality Learning Environments for Engineering Design: Using Tablet PCs and Guidelines from Research on How People Learn,

Departamento de Ingenier´ıa Qu´ımica, Alimentos y Ambiental,

Lourdes Gazca ,
Lourdes Gazca

Centro para la Educacion de las Ciencias, Ingenierıas y Tecnologıas (CECIT),

Juan Antonio Díaz García ,
Juan Antonio Díaz García

Centro para la Educaci´on de las Ciencias, Ingenier´ıas y Tecnolog´ıas (CECIT),

Departamento de Ingenierıa Industrial y Mecanica,

José Andrés Rojas Lobato ,
José Andrés Rojas Lobato

Centro para la Educaci´on de las Ciencias, Ingenier´ıas y Tecnolog´ıas (CECIT),

Departamento de Ingenierıa Industrial y Mecanica,

Luis Geraldo Guerrero Ojeda ,
Luis Geraldo Guerrero Ojeda

Centro para la Educacion de las Ciencias, Ingenierıas y Tecnologıas (CECIT),

José Francisco Tamborero Arnal ,
José Francisco Tamborero Arnal

Centro para la Educacion de las Ciencias, Ingenierıas y Tecnologıas (CECIT),

Departamento de Ingenierıa Industrial y Mecanica,

María Teresa Jiménez Munguía ,
María Teresa Jiménez Munguía

Centro para la Educacion de las Ciencias, Ingenierıas y Tecnologıas (CECIT),

Departamento de Ingenierıa Quımica, Alimentos y Ambiental,

Aurelio López-Malo ,
Aurelio López-Malo

Centro para la Educacion de las Ciencias, Ingenierıas y Tecnologıas (CECIT),

Departamento de Ingenierıa Quımica, Alimentos y Ambiental,

Juan Manuel Garibay
Juan Manuel Garibay

Centro para la Educacion de las Ciencias, Ingenierıas y Tecnologıas (CECIT),

Published: 18.04.2012.

Volume 1, Issue 1 (2012)

pp. 1-16;

https://doi.org/10.7455/ijfs.v1i1.42

Abstract

A team of several faculty members and graduate students at Universidad de las Amricas Puebla is improving engineering design teaching and learning by creating richer learning environments that promote an interactive classroom while integrating formative assessment into classroom practices by means of Tablet PCs and associated technologies. Learning environments that are knowledge-, learner-, community-, and assessment-centered as highlighted by the How People Learn framework, have been developed. To date, the redesign of the undergraduate course entitled Introduction to Engineering Design has signicantly (p<0.05) increased student participation; formative assessment and feedback are more common and rapid; and instructors are utilizing the information gained through real-time formative assessments to tailor instruction to meet student needs. Particularly important have been opportunities to make student thinking visible and to give them chances to revise, as well as opportunities for "what if" thinking.

Keywords

References

1.
Anderson R, Mcdowell L, Simon B. Proceedings of the 35th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. 2005.
2.
Angelo T, Cross K. Classroom assessment techniques: a handbook for college teachers. Jossey-Bass; 1993.
3.
Birol G, Liu S, Smith H, Hirsch P. Educational modules in tissue engineering based on the “how people learn” framework. Bioscience Education Electronic Journal. 2006.
4.
Bransford J, Vye N, Bateman H. The knowledge economy and postsecondary education report of a workshop. National Academies Press; 2002. p. 159–98.
5.
Bransford J, Schwartz D. Rethinking transfer: a simple proposal with multiple implications. Review of Research in Education. 1999. p. 61–100.
6.
Bransford J, Brown A, Cocking R. How People Learn: brain, mind, experience, and school: expanded edition. National Academies Press; 2000.
7.
Cordray D, Harris A, Harris T. Proceedings of the annual ASEE Conference. 2007.
8.
Cox M, Cordray D. Assessing pedagogy in bioengineering classrooms: quantifying elements of the “How People Learn” model using the VaNTH observation system (vos). Journal of Engineering Education. 2008. p. 413–31.
9.
Cox M, Harris A. fetch ? url = file % 3A % 2F % 2Flocalhost % 2FE % 3A % 2Fsearch % 2Fconference % 2F19 % 2FAC % 25202009Full1071. 2006.
10.
Dym C, Agogino A, Eris O, Frey D, Leifer L. Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. IEEE Engineering Management Review. 2005. p. 1593–4.
11.
Felder R, Woods D, Stice J, Rugarcia A. The Future of Engineering Education II. teaching Methods that Work. Chemical Engineering Education. 2000. p. 26–39.
12.
Gazca L, Palou E, López-Malo A, Garibay J. file % 3A % 2F % 2Flocalhost % 2FE % 3A % 2Fsearch % 2Fconference % 2F12 % 2F2006Full1790. 2009.
13.
Gazca L, Palou E, López-Malo A, Garibay J. Proceedings of the 39th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Ed-ucation Conference. 2009.
14.
Harris A. A manual for the VaNTH observation system. VaNTH Engineering Research Center; 2003.
15.
Harris A, Cox M. Developing an observation system to capture instructional differences in engineering classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education. 2003. p. 329–36.
16.
Jenkins J. Levels of processing in human memory. Erlbaum; 1979. p. 429–46.
17.
Johnson D, Johnson R, Smith K. Active learning: cooperation in the college classroom. Interaction Book Co. 1998.
18.
Kowalski F, Kowalski S, Hoover E. file % 3A % 2F % 2Flocalhost % 2FE % 3A % 2Fsearch % 2Fconference % 2F14 % 2FAC % 25202007Full2519. 2007.
19.
Lecompte M, Schensul J. Designing and conducting ethnographic research. AltaMira Press; 1999.
20.
Palou E, Tamborero J. Memorias de la XXIX Conferencia Nacional de Ingeniería. 2009.
21.
Pellegrino J, Chudowsky N, Glaser R. Knowing what students know: the science and design of educational assessment. National Academies Press; 2001.
22.
Schwartz D, Bransford J. A time for telling. Cognition and Instruction. 1998. p. 475–522.
23.
Shavelson R, Towne L. Scientific research in education. National Academies Press; 2002.
24.
Tront J, Eligeti V, Prey J. Proceedings of the 36th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. 2006.
25.
Wiggins G, Mctighe J. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Prentice Hall; 1997.
26.
Wise J, Toto R, Lim Y, K. Proceedings of the 36th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. 36th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers. 2006.

Citation

Copyright

Article metrics

Google scholar: See link

The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Most read articles

Indexed by