INSTRUCTOR-STUDENT DYNAMICS MAPPING PROTOCOL DESIGN FOR A GEOMATICS ENGINEERING CLASSROOM

INSTRUCTOR-STUDENT DYNAMICS MAPPING PROTOCOL DESIGN FOR A GEOMATICS ENGINEERING CLASSROOM

S. Cao, E. Rangelova, I. Detchev (2020).  INSTRUCTOR-STUDENT DYNAMICS MAPPING PROTOCOL DESIGN FOR A GEOMATICS ENGINEERING CLASSROOM. Volume 2, pp.328-342.

The discipline of Geomatics Engineering evolved from Survey Engineering in response to the rapid development of technologies. Two University of Calgary courses, ENGO 343: Fundamentals of Surveying and ENGO 363: Estimation and Statistical Testing, are core courses taken by second-year Geomatics Engineering students, where they often have trouble grasping the content. Instructors restructured the courses to transition from a traditional lecture-centric classroom into an active learning environment. A longitudinal study was designed to map instructor-student dynamic in a classroom, using classroom behaviour to assess student learning. An independent third-party observed a given lecture by recording the actions of the instructor and students. The pilot was successful, and the study moved forward to Phase 2 in Winter 2019 using a revised observation protocol based on the Interactive-Constructive-Active-Passive (ICAP) Framework. lectures in ENGO 343 and ENGO 363, as well as lectures, labs, and tutorials for ENGG 407: Numerical Methods in Engineering were observed, where student and instructor actions at every 2-minute intervals were recorded using a list of pre-determined action codes. Different teaching styles inform the distribution of observed codes. Instructor must facilitate more active learning events, specifically Constructive and Interactive learning opportunities, to retain student engagement. The current protocol is revised to capture the complex student-student dynamics in a non-instructor-led classroom setting.

Authors (New): 
Sheng Lun Cao
Elena Rangelova
Ivan Detchev
Pages: 
Volume 2, pp.328-342
Affiliations: 
University of Calgary, Canada
Keywords: 
Geomatics Engineering
Classroom Mapping
Class Observation
ICAP Framework
Engineering education
Active learning
CDIO Standard 8
CDIO Standard 11
Year: 
2020
Reference: 
Arshavsky, N., Edmunds, J., Charles, K., Rice, O., Argueta, R., Faber, M., & Parker, B. (2012). STEM Classroom Observation Protocol. Greensboro, NC: The SERVE Center, University of North Carolina at Greensboro. http://www.serve.org/STEM.aspx: 
CDIO Standards 2.0. (n.d.). Worldwide CDIO Initiative. Retrieved January 29, 2020, from http://www.cdio.org/implementing-cdio/standards/12-cdio-standards#standard8: 
Chi, M. T. H. (2009). Active-Constructive-Interactive: A Conceptual Framework for Differentiating Learning Activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), 73–105.: 
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01005.x
Chi, M. T. H., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP Framework: Linking Cognitive Engagement to Active Learning Outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219–243. : 
https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.965823
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415. : 
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111
Geomatics Engineering. (n.d.). University of Calgary. Retrieved January 29, 2020, from http://www.ucalgary.ca/future-students/undergraduate/explore-programs/geomatics-engineering: 
Meyer, J. H. F., & Land, R. (2003). Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge (1): Linkages to ways of thinking and practising within the disciplines.: 
Meyer, J. H. F., & Land, R. (2005). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (2): Epistemological considerations and a conceptual framework for teaching and learning. Higher Education, 49(3), 373–388: 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-6779-5
Prince, M. (2004). Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the Research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231.: 
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x
Rangelova, E., & Cao, S. L. (2019). ACTIVE LEARNING IN A SECOND YEAR SURVEYING COURSE. Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA). : 
https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.vi0.13823
Rangelova, E., Detchev, I., & Packer, S. (2018). Quantifying “deep learning” in geomatics engineering by means of classroom observations. Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA).: 
https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.v0i0.13015
Streveler, R. A., & Menekse, M. (2017). Taking a Closer Look at Active Learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 106(2), 186–190. : 
https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20160
Go to top
randomness