Design of Learning Artefacts - Prototyping Change of Educational Culture

Design of Learning Artefacts - Prototyping Change of Educational Culture

ABSTRACT In this paper we propose that both teachers and students are in need of support in order to successfully implement CDIO standard 1-4: context, learning outcomes, integrated curriculum, and introduction to engineering. The main reason for this is a need for clarification of objectives in order to begin progress into a professional engineering role. Put differently, we in this paper explore how self-regulated learning can be integrated, supported and expressed in the form of learning objects, as part of strategic pedagogical development such as a CDIO implementation. From a leadership perspective, one of the challenges is to implement change of practice within rather autonomous teaching and learning communities (Clegg, 2003; Mintzberg, 1978). Our experience is that teachers often state that they are alone with the practical responsibility of teaching in courses, and that overall pedagogical intentions and objectives of a CDIO implementation is perceived as a strategic task for leaders. These are two quite different practices. Among both leaders and teachers, this however involves a challenge to convert the intentions of the CDIO standards and syllabus, into practical tools and everyday teaching and learning activities that in the end have only one overall objective: to support student learning. One of CDIOs basic intentions is that of developing the professional role of the engineer. For this reason we have explored the role of 'learning objects', i.e. artifacts with potential to support interpretation and meaningful negotiations. The idea explored in this paper was to prototype different kinds of support contributing in strengthening students’ ownership of their learning process, through increased awareness of their professional identity as engineers. Based on an idea of action learning through design, we designed learning objects that show potential in facilitating participation and reification. On a micro level, this involves what the individual student and teacher do in a teaching and learning activity. On a meso level it involves what the faculty can do that influence students’ learning experience. On a macro level it also includes national and international perspectives on strategic pedagogic development that can or should influence a learning framework. In this paper we propose learning objects to not only support students’ learning, but also help teachers' ability to design a learning framework that contribute to students’ understanding of the professional engineering role and hence contribute to an overall CDIO intention. The aim is to reach a state where the dialogue about context, learning outcomes, integrated learning experiences, and the professional engineering role are considered of uttermost importance, and continuously influence what, how and why in what teachers and students do. However, to be able to consider this as an integral part in a learning framework, we need a change in attitudes, learning, and behaviour as well as an experienced return on investment among leaders, teachers and students. Then, and only then, we can say that we have implemented the CDIO learning framework.

KEYWORDS Professional role, learning objects, self-regulated learning, learning framework, artifact, strategic pedagogic development, CDIO standards

Proceedings of the 13th International CDIO Conference in Calgary, Canada, June 18-22 2017

Authors (New): 
Åsa Wikberg Nilsson
Oskar Gedda
Pages: 
10
Affiliations: 
Luleå University of Technology, Sweden
Keywords: 
Strategic pedagogic development
artefacts
self-regulated learning
competences
objects of learning
professional role
CDIO Standard 1
CDIO Standard 2
CDIO Standard 3
CDIO standard 4
Year: 
2017-01-01 00:00:00
Reference: 
Bowker, G.C. & Star, S.L. (1999). Sorting things out: classification and its consequences. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press: 
Clegg, S. (2003). Learning and Teaching Policies in Higher Education: Mediations and Contradictions of Practice. British Educational Research Journal, Vol. 6. pp. 803.: 
Crawley, E.F., Malmqvist, J., Östlund, S., Brodeur, D.R. & Edström, K. (2014). Rethinking Engineering Education: The CDIO Approach. (2nd ed.) : 
ISBN: 9783319055619
Cuban, L. (1986) Teachers and machines: the classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press: 
Ehn, P. (2008) Participation in design things. Proceedings of Participatory Design Conference (PDC), Bloomington, Indiana, USA, 2008: 
Gedda, O. (2014). Utbildningskultur: lärande i högre utbildning. PhD thesis (In Swedish). Institutionen för konst, kultur och lärande. Luleå: Luleå tekniska universitet: 
Gibbs, G., Knapper, C. & Piccinin, S. (2009) Departmental Leadership of Teaching in ResearchIntensive Environment. Research and Development Series. London: The Leadership Foundation for Higher Education.: 
ISBN: 978-1-906627-04-1
Hattie, John (2008). Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement. NY: Routledge.: 
ISBN 978-0-415-47618-8
Marton, F. and Säljö, R. (1976) On qualitative differences in learning: I- outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 46, Iss. 1, pp. 4-11: 
Pressley, M., Borkowski, J. G. & Schneider, W. (1989) Good Information Processing: What It Is and How Education Can Promote It. International Journal of Educational Research Vol. 13, No. 8, pp. 857-867 · December 1989.: 
10.1016/0883-0355(89)90069-4
Prosser, M. & Trigwell, K. (1999) Understanding Learning and Teaching. The Experience in Higher Education. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education.: 
Star, S. (2010). This is Not a Boundary Object: Reflections on the Origin of a Concept. Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol, 35, No. 5, pp. 601-617. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25746386 (Downloaded: 2016-12-22): 
Star, S. & Griesemer, J. (1989). Institutional Ecology, 'Translations' and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science. Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 387–420. : 
10.1177/030631289019003001
Trowler, P. (2008). Cultures and change in higher education: theories and practices. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.: 
Wenger, E.(1998). Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.: 
Wernberg, A. (2009) The object of learning. What students are expected to learn, what is made possible for them to learn and what they actually learn. PhD thesis (In Swedish,with a summary in English) Umeå: Umeå University: 
Wikberg Nilsson, Å. & Törlind, P. (2016) Student Competence Profiles - a complementary or competitive approach to CDIO? In proceedings of 12th International CDIO conference, June 13-16, Åbo, Finland: 
Zimmerman, B. J. (1990) Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement: An Overview. Educational Psychologist, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 3-17: 
10.1207/ s15326985ep2501_2
Go to top