Karl A. Smith

Cooperative Learning Returns To College What Evidence Is There That It Works

The myth of individual genius and achievement--as opposed to cooperative efforts--is deeply ingrained in American culture. Americans seem deeply committed to the idea of the individual hero---a rugged self-starter who meets challenges and overcomes adversity. Sports, for example, are more often defined by individual superstars than by the quality of teamwork. Academic excellence is more often personified by the valedictorian than by academic teamwork.

The future of engineering education

Thirteen engineering educators and researchers were each asked to choose a particular aspect of engineerings future to address. Each of the authors has contributed a short piece that has been edited into a discussion of the future as we collectively see it. Topics include the stimulating change, the changing university, teaching, learning, research, outcome assessment and technology as well as a look back at predictions for 2000.

Five Major Shifts in 100 Years of Engineering Education

In this paper, five major shifts in engineering education are identified. During the engineering science revolution, curricula moved from hands-on practice to mathematical modeling and scientific analyses. The first shift was initiated by engineering faculty members from Europe; accelerated during World War II, when physicists contributed multiple engineering breakthroughs; codified in the Grinter report; and kick-started by Sputnik. Did accreditation hinder curricular innovations? Were engineering graduates ready for practice? Spurred by these questions, the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) required engineering programs to formulate outcomes, systematically assess achievement, and continuously improve student learning. The last three shifts are in progress. Since the engineering science revolution may have marginalized design, a distinctive feature of engineering, faculty members refocused attention on capstone and first-year engineering design courses. However, this third shift has not affected the two years in between. Fourth, research on learning and education continues to influence engineering education. Examples include learning outcomes and teaching approaches, such as cooperative learning and inquiry that increase student engagement. In shift five, technologies (e.g., the Internet, intelligent tutors, personal computers, and simulations) have been predicted to transform education for over 50 years; however, broad transformation has not yet been observed. Together, these five shifts characterize changes in engineering education over the past 100 years.

Cooperative learning: effective teamwork for engineering classrooms

A definition of cooperative learning and a brief overview of types of cooperative learning groups-informal, formal, and base, are presented. Essential elements of a well-structured formal cooperative learning group are considered along with the professors role in structuring a problem-based cooperative learning group. A summary of research support for cooperative learning is also presented.

Constructive Controversy: The Educative Power of Intellectual Conflict.

(2000). Constructive Controversy: The Educative Power of Intellectual Conflict. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning: Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 28-37.

A Framework for Quality K-12 Engineering Education: Research and Development

AbstractRecent U.S. national documents have laid the foundation for highlighting the connection between science, technology, engineering andmathematics at the K-12 level. However, there is not a clear definition or a well-established tradition of what constitutes a qualityengineering education at the K-12 level. The purpose of the current work has been the development of a framework for describing whatconstitutes a quality K-12 engineering education. The framework presented in this paper is the result of a research project focused onunderstanding and identifying the ways in which teachers and schools implement engineering and engineering design in their classrooms.The development of the key indicators that are included in the framework were determined based on an extensive review of the literature,established criteria for undergraduate and professional organizations, document content analysis of state academic content standards inscience, mathematics, and technology, and in consultation with experts in the fields of engineering and engineering education. Theframework is designed to be used as a tool for evaluating the degree to which academic standards, curricula, and teaching practicesaddress the important components of a quality K-12 engineering education. Additionally, this framework can be used to inform thedevelopment and structure of future K-12 engineering and STEM education standards and initiatives.

Effects of Controversy on Learning in Cooperative Groups

Summary A study of the effects of controversy and concurrence-seeking in cooperative learning groups was conducted with 36 engineering students, in order to clarify the role of controversy by examining oral interaction among group members. Two controversial issues were studied and discussed for five days each: (a) hazardous waste (dispose vs eliminate) and (b) energy production (coal vs nuclear). At the end of each instructional period the students wrote a report, and completed an achievement test and an attitude survey. Trained observers recorded the oral interaction among the group members. Achievement and attitudes were similar for the two conditions, indicating that controversy did not have a negative effect. More of the oral interactions were elaborative in the controversy condition, whereas more were informative in the concurrence-seeking condition.

Effects of cooperative and individualistic instruction on the achievement of handicapped, regular, and gifted students

Summary The effects of cooperative and individualistic learning experiences were compared on achievement of academically handicapped, normal-progress, and gifted sixth-grade students. Fifty-five students were assigned to conditions on a stratified random basis controlling for ability and sex. They participated in one instructional unit for 65 minutes a day for five instructional days. The results indicate that cooperative learning experiences promoted higher achievement, greater retention, more positive attitudes among students, and higher self-esteem than did individualistic learning experiences.

The Nature and Development of Engineering Expertise

Abstract Engineering is the application of science and mathematics to human problems. This is a view that pervades engineering education. Recent emphasis in the United States is ‘engineering is design’. The thesis of this paper is that engineering as science as well as engineering as design are inadequate conceptions of engineering. The thesis is supported by comparing school and out-of-school knowledge. The nature of engineering is explored in terms of the activities of engineers and the goals of engineering education. Koens definition of the engineering method, “The engineering method is the use of heuristics to cause the best change in a poorly understood situation within the available resources”, is introduced. The nature of expertise is examined. Alternatives to the ‘empty vessel’ model are presented for the development of engineering expertise. The alternatives include cognitive apprenticeship, reflective practicum, co-operative learning and problem-based instruction.

Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research: Retention and Persistence of Women and Minorities Along the Engineering Pathway in the United States

Countries around the world rely on the contributions of engineers to support national interests and maintain economic competitiveness. In the United States, government and industry leaders have long regarded engineers and other members of the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce as vital to the nation’s economy and security. It is hardly surprising, then, that issues surrounding student retention and persistence in engineering degree programs and the engineering workforce are of special interest to engineering educators. Since the 1970s, federal policy and funding have specifically focused on attracting and retaining women and minorities in science and engineering fields. Yet progress has been halting. In one comprehensive study, the United States ranked 30th of 35 countries in the proportion of female Ph.D.s in engineering, manufacturing, and construction, and 24th of 30 with respect to growth in the proportion of female Ph.D.s in these sectors (European Commission, 2009, p. 51).1 In this chapter, we examine the influence of U.S. federal policy on engineering education over the past forty years, with special attention to the impact of efforts to increase the numbers of women and minorities in the STEM workforce.