A methodology for improving active learning engineering courses with a large number of students and teachers through feedback gathering and iterative refinement

  • Iria Estévez-Ayres
  • Carlos Alario-Hoyos
  • Mar Pérez-Sanagustín
  • Abelardo Pardo
  • Raquel M. Crespo-García
  • Derick Leony
  • Hugo A. Parada G.
  • Carlos Delgado-Kloos
Article

Abstract

In the last decade, engineering education has evolved in many ways to meet society demands. Universities offer more flexible curricula and put a lot of effort on the acquisition of professional engineering skills by the students. In many universities, the courses in the first years of different engineering degrees share program and objectives, having a large number of students and teachers. These common courses are expected to provide the students with meaningful learning experiences, which could be achieved by using active learning. The use of active learning in engineering courses improves traditional teaching by promoting students’ participation and engagement, although active learning courses can be very sensitive to differences in learning paces or team conflicts; this being a challenge for the widespread adoption of active learning in courses with many students and teachers. This paper proposes a methodology that facilitates the detection and reaction to problems in active learning engineering courses with many students and teachers. This methodology is based on gathering feedback (from students and teachers) and decision-making processes at selected milestones. The methodology integrates intra-edition mechanisms in order to detect problems and react as the courses are being taught, and inter-edition mechanisms to ensure the persistence of necessary changes in the courses design. The methodology has been successfully applied during four consecutive editions to improve an undergraduate active learning programming course with an average of 257 students and 9 teachers per edition. An extended validation of expert educators suggests that this methodology can also be applied to traditional engineering courses.

Keywords

Engineering course Active learning Feedback gathering Iterative refinement Large number of teachers and students 

References

  1. Alpay, E. (2013). Student attraction to engineering through flexibility and breadth in the curriculum. European Journal of Engineering Education, 38(1), 58–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Angelo, T. A., & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers. New York: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  3. Ashton, K. B. (2013). Reflections on the gathering of student feedback: An evaluative case study. Higher Education Research Network Journal, 7, 3–12.Google Scholar
  4. Balam, E. M., & Shannon, D. M. (2010). Student ratings of college teaching: A comparison of faculty and their students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(2), 209–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barone, S., & Lo Franco, E. (2010). TESF methodology for statistics education improvement. Journal of Statistics Education, 18(3), 1–25.Google Scholar
  6. Bateman, G.R., Roberts, H.V. (1993). TQM for professors and students.Google Scholar
  7. Bouton, C., & Garth, R. Y. (1983). Students in learning groups: Active learning through conversation. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1983(14), 73–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brinko, K. T. (1993). The practice of giving feedback to improve teaching: What is effective? Journal of Higher Education, 64(5), 574–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brookfield, S. (1995). The getting of wisdom: What critically reflective teaching is and why it’s important. In: Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher, Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  10. Bullock, C. D. (2003). Online collection of midterm student feedback. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2003(96), 95–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cohen, P. A. (1980). Effectiveness of student-rating feedback for improving college instruction: A meta-analysis of findings. Research in Higher Education, 13(4), 321–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cohen, P. A. (1981). Student ratings of instruction and student achievement: A meta-analysis of multisection validity studies. Review of Educational Research, 51(3), 281–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Daly, C. (2008). Evaluation for new learning contexts how can it be fit for purpose ? Reflecting Education, 4(1), 127–138.Google Scholar
  14. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). The sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications Inc.Google Scholar
  15. EUA (2009) Improving quality, enhancing creativity: Change processes in European higher education institutions: Final report of the quality assurance for the higher education change agenda (QAHECA) project. European University Association.Google Scholar
  16. Felder, R. (1992). What do they know anyway? Chemical Engineering Education, 26(3), 134–135.Google Scholar
  17. Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2009). Active learning: An introduction. ASQ Higher Education Brief, 2(4), 1–5.Google Scholar
  18. Felton, J., Mitchell, J., & Stinson, M. (2004). Web-based student evaluations of professors: The relations between perceived quality, easiness and sexiness. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(1), 91–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gahan, C., & Hannibal, M. (1999). Doing qualitative research using QSR NUD* IST (1st ed.). London, UK: SagePublications Ltd.Google Scholar
  20. Jara, M., & Mellar, H. (2010). Quality enhancement for e-learning courses: The role of student feedback. Computers & Education, 54(3), 709–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Leony, D., Pardo, A., de la Fuente Valentín L., de Castro, S.D., Delgado Kloos, C. (2012). Glass: a learning analytics visualization tool. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge, ACM, pp 162–163.Google Scholar
  22. Litzinger, T., Lattuca, L. R., Hadgraft, R., & Newstetter, W. (2011). Engineering education and the development of expertise. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(1), 123–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Marsh, H.W. (2007). Students evaluations of university teaching: Dimensionality, reliability, validity, potential biases and usefulness. In: The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: An evidence-based perspective, Springer, pp 319–383.Google Scholar
  24. Martínez-Monés, A., Gómez-Sánchez, E., Dimitriadis, Y. A., Jorrín-Abellán, I. M., & Rubia-Avi, B. (2005). Multiple case studies to enhance project-based learning in a computer architecture course. IEEE Transactions on Education, 48(3), 482–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Martínez-Monés, A., Dimitriadis, Y., Gómez-Sánchez, E., Rubia-Avi, B., Jorrín-Abellán, I., & Marcos, J. A. (2006). Studying participation networks in collaboration using mixed methods. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(3), 383–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Moura, I. C., & van Hattum-Janssen, N. (2011). Teaching a CS introductory course: An active approach. Computers and Education, 56(2), 475–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Moursund, D. (1999). Project-based learning using information technology (1st ed.). Eugene, OR, USA: ISTE.Google Scholar
  28. Oakley, B., Felder, R. M., Brent, R., & Elhajj, I. (2004). Turning student groups into effective teams. Journal of Student Centered Learning, 2(1), 9–34.Google Scholar
  29. Overall, J., & Marsh, H. W. (1979). Midterm feedback from students: Its relationship to instructional improvement and students’ cognitive and affective outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(6), 856–865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pardo, A., Estévez-Ayres, I., Basanta-Val, P., & Fuentes-Lorenzo, D. (2011). Course quality improvement using mid-semester feedback. International Journal on Technology-Enhanced Learning, 3(4), 366–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sheppard, S., Macatangay, K., Colby, A., & Sullivan, W. M. (2008). Educating engineers: Designing for the future of the field. San Francisco, CA, USA: Jossey-Bass Inc Pub.Google Scholar
  33. Steward, B. L., Mickelson, S. K., & Brumm, T. J. (2005). Continuous engineering course improvement through synergistic use of multiple assessment. International Journal of Engineering Education, 21(2), 277.Google Scholar
  34. Stewart, J., Oliver, W, I. I. I., & Stewart, G. (2013). Revitalizing an undergraduate physics program: A case study of the University of Arkansas. American Journal of Physics, 81(12), 943–950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sursock, A., & Smidt, H. (2010). Trends 2010: A decade of change in European higher education. Brussels, Belgium: EUA publications, European University Association.Google Scholar
  36. Takriff, M.S., Abdullah, S.R.S., Mohammad, A.B., Anuar, N. (2011). Students’ feedback in the continuous quality improvement cycle of engineering education. In: Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), 2011 IEEE, IEEE, pp 374–377.Google Scholar
  37. Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA, USA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  38. Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological bulletin, 63(6), 384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wachtel, H. (1998). Student evaluation of college teaching effectiveness: A brief review. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 23(2), 191–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Walker, A., & Leary, H. (2009). A problem based learning meta analysis: Differences across problem types, implementation types, disciplines, and assessment levels. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 3(1), 6–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Weinberg, B. A., Fleisher, B. M., & Hashimoto, M. (2007). Evaluating methods for evaluating instruction: The case of higher education. Tech. rep., National Bureau of Economic ResearchGoogle Scholar
  42. Yao, Y., & Grady, M. L. (2005). How do faculty make formative use of student evaluation feedback?: A multiple case study. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 18(2), 107–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Iria Estévez-Ayres
    • 1
  • Carlos Alario-Hoyos
    • 1
  • Mar Pérez-Sanagustín
    • 2
  • Abelardo Pardo
    • 3
  • Raquel M. Crespo-García
    • 1
  • Derick Leony
    • 1
  • Hugo A. Parada G.
    • 4
  • Carlos Delgado-Kloos
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Telematic EngineeringUniversidad Carlos III de MadridLeganés, MadridSpain
  2. 2.Department of Computer SciencePontificia Universidad Católica de ChileSantiago de ChileChile
  3. 3.School of Electrical and Information EngineeringUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia
  4. 4.Center for Open Middleware (COM)Universidad Politécnica de MadridPozuelo de Alarcón, MadridSpain

Personalised recommendations