76 research outputs found
Innovative learning at The University of Edinburgh
The activities available to civil engineering students during the University of Edinburgh's innovative learning week in 2012 were examined. The academic staff proposed a wide range of possible activities and student participation was optional. Popular activities were those with a âhands-onâ element: making or doing something. The practical activities offered included designing and building trebuchets, relaying railway permanent way on a heritage railway, practical workshops on engineering in international development and learning to juggle. These activities suggested that heuristic learning by trial and error was likely to enhance the visualisation skills that contribute to good engineering design. Further, the linking of achievement to purposeful practice rather than innate talent could inform teaching methods in the future. They also showed that in some cases safety culture messages were still not fully assimilated by students
Creating an Instrument to Measure Student Response to Instructional Practices
BackgroundCalls for the reform of education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) have inspired many instructional innovations, some research based. Yet adoption of such instruction has been slow. Research has suggested that studentsâ response may significantly affect an instructorâs willingness to adopt different types of instruction.PurposeWe created the Student Response to Instructional Practices (StRIP) instrument to measure the effects of several variables on student response to instructional practices. We discuss the stepâbyâstep process for creating this instrument.Design/MethodThe development process had six steps: item generation and construct development, validity testing, implementation, exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and instrument modification and replication. We discuss pilot testing of the initial instrument, construct development, and validation using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses.ResultsThis process produced 47 items measuring three parts of our framework. Types of instruction separated into four factors (interactive, constructive, active, and passive); strategies for using inâclass activities into two factors (explanation and facilitation); and student responses to instruction into five factors (value, positivity, participation, distraction, and evaluation).ConclusionsWe describe the design process and final results for our instrument, a useful tool for understanding the relationship between type of instruction and studentsâ response.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/136692/1/jee20162_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/136692/2/jee20162.pd
An exploration of whether engineers differ from non-engineers in their approach to negotiations
First-Year Students' Environmental Awareness and Understanding of Environmental Sustainability Through a Life Cycle Assessment Module
- âŠ