Iterative development of engineering-at-school teaching capacities in Danish primary and lower secondary schools.

(1)

Gør tanke til handling VIA University College

Iterative development of engineering-at-school teaching capacities in

Danish primary and lower secondary schools.

ETEN 2018 – Rotterdam Peer Daugbjerg (pd@via.dk) Martin Sillasen (msil@via.dk)

15. maj 2018 ETEN 2018 - Rotterdam

1

F21

Example: Construct an insulating

coffeecup

15. maj 2018 2

What is engineering?

F22

(2)

F21 Vi skal vælge skarpt i slides i forhold til hovedpointen: At styrke læreres undervisningskapacitet i iterative processer. Det er med denne vinkel jeg kommenterer de efterfølgende slides.

Forfatter; 17-03-2018

Slide nummer 2

F22 Måske denne som anslag lige til at starte med, før agenda? Starte med at sige: Lærerne skal trænes i at engineering. HEr er et eksempel. Indsætte et 4 foto med EDP-modellen?

(3)

Vi lover dette i abstractet

- det er ikke helt på plads i endnu.

15. maj 2018 3

– The session will start with a presentation of the overall design and the results from the development and the test phase leading to the final programme description with didactical models, differentiation schemes, evaluation rubrics and teaching materials. The session will then open for the participants to comment and add their experiences with implementing engineering in their school systems. The joint reflections will be facilitated by the presenters.

– Vi har 30 min ialt dvs vi skal ned på 20 slides

F23 F24 F25

Agenda

– for the visual oriented audience

15. maj 2018 4 ETEN 2018 - Rotterdam

F26

(4)

F23 Det er vel lærernes arbejde i aktionslæringsprocesser med at fortolke og operationalisere disse elementer, som er vores hovedhistorie? Ikke hvordan vi brugte lærerne i fase 1-2 til at udvikle værktøjerne?

F24 vi har det indsendte abstarct lovet det der står på dette slide.

F25 vi bliver nød til at have det iterative med dvs dbr phase 2 Forfatter; 21-03-2018

Slide nummer 4

F26 Denne skal vi ikke bruge.

(5)

Agenda

– Background

– Design based research – Iterative development

– Coordinated development of course plan and teaching material

– Iterative course plan – Action learning design – Faded guidance

F27

15. maj 2018 6

F28

(6)

F27 Denne skal vi bruge?

Slide nummer 6

F28 Forfatter; 17-03-2018

(7)

What is

Project ”Engineering-at-School”?

15. maj 2018 7

- A joint, coordinated, national effort - Purpose:

- To integrate engineering in science at primary and lower secondary levels: grade 4-10.

- Facilitate pupils learning in technology and science - Improve pupils interest in science and technology

Partners: Engineering the Future, ASTRA, House of Science and VIA University College

What is engineering?

Definition used in project

”Engineering in School”

Engineering as a teaching practice concerns how to construct practical solutions for practical problems.

How to identify challenges that is a problem for somebody. How to design and evaluate a good protoptype.

(Sillasen, Daugbjerg and Nielsen 2017)

General engineering

definition used in engineering didactical research.

Engineering design is a systematic, intelligent process in which designers generate, evaluate, and specify concepts for devices, systems, or processes whose form and function achieve clients’ objectives or users’

needs while satisfying a specified set of constraints.

(Dym, Agogino, Eris, Frey & Leifer, 2005) in (Kolmos & Grunwald, 2017)

15. maj 2018 8

F29

(8)

F29 Denne skal vi kke bruge. Vi laver en operationel definition med slide 6. Jeg kan tage lidt artefakter med, så vi viser nogle konkrete prototyper.

(9)

DBR-projectdesign criteriasfor the sub-project:

Didacticsand competencedevelopment

15. maj 2018 9

1. Central goals of designing learning environments and developing theories of learning are intertwined

2. R&D iterative cycles of design, enactment, analysis and re-design

3. Development of concepts and models in collaboration with practitioners and educational designers

4. Research accounts for how the project functions in authentic settings

5. Developed didactical theory connects enactment to outcomes

(Inspired by The design-based research collective, 2003)

F30

1. How are goals of designing learning environments and developing theories of

learning are intertwined?

15. maj 2018 10

(10)

F30 Jeg synes vi skal nedprioritere pkt 2-3-4 og lægge vægt på 1 og 5.

(11)

The overall designprocessin the project

Litterature review

Building TPD capacity

Developing/re-designingcurriculummaterials

May. 2017 Oct. 2017 Jan. 2018 Jan. 201A

Didactic2.0 Didactic3.0 Didactic1.0

F31

15. maj 2018 12

(Van der Pol et al, 2010)

(12)

F31 slide 11-12-13-14 synes jeg er vores hovedhistorie. De bør helt frem lige efter vi præsenterere DBR-kriterierne.

(13)

TPD as actionlearning in local

professional learning communities

15. maj 2018 13 Teachers

experimenting with engineering in own teaching practice

Period of 2-3 months Workshop 1

2 days NEW KNOWLEDGE

ACTIVITIES

EXPERIENCES INQUIRIES SUGGESTIONS

Teachers experimenting with engineering in own teaching practice

NEW KNOWLEDGE ACTIVITIES

EXPERIENCES INQUIRIES SUGGESTIONS

Workshop 2 1 day

Workshop 3 1 day

Individual &

collaborative enactments at local schools

1. How are goals of designing learning environments and developing theories of learningare intertwined?

15. maj 2018 14

Faded Support

Transfer of responsibility Scaffolding

Action learning

Network learning environment

Organizing local PLC’s Building capacities in each municipality

(14)

8

15. maj 2018 15

2. How do R&D iterative cycles of design, enactment, analysis and re-design look like?

- descriptive

3. How did concepts and models evolve through the developmental phase?

- analysis

15. maj 2018 16

2. How do R&D iterative cycles of design, enactment, analysis and re-design look like?

- descriptive

(15)

The overall designprocessin the project

May. 2017 Oct. 2017 Jan. 2018 Jan. 201A

Engineering Design Proces ver 1, Teacher model Pupils model

Definere/forstå problem og succeskriterier løsning

(Re-)designe løsning/prototy

pe

Teste og diskutere prototype Fremstille

prototype

Evaluere - Prototype - Proces Præsentere/diskut

ere prototype

(16)

10 Data collected in phase 1 & 2

15. maj 2018 19

– Teacher survey during ws 1

– Teachers immidiate respons to models and worksheets during ws 1

– Pupil survey between ws 2 and 3 – Teacher survey between ws 2 and 3

– Observations of engineering teaching between ws 2 and 3 – Teachers praxis photostories from engineering teaching – Teacher reflections on teaching material and models

during ws 3

Engineering design proces 3.0

Understand challenge

Research Develop ideas

Improve

Construct Plan

Present solution

(17)

15. maj 2018 21

2. How do R&D iterative cycles of design, enactment, analysis and re-design look like?

- Preliminary understanding formulated - Selection and development of

curriculum material

F32

15. maj 2018 22

2. How do R&D iterative cycles of design, enactment, analysis and re-design look like?

- Preliminary understanding formulated - Selection of curriculum material

3. How did concepts and models evolve through the developmental phase?

- Contiunous discussion and adjustment of concepts, notions and models

F33

(18)

F32 Slide 15-16-17-18-19-20 viser tilblivelsesprocessen af de midler/værktøjer som vi bruger til at

opbygge lærernes kapacitet. Det er ikke vores hovedhistorie. JEg synes vi skal bruge 1-2 slides max på at sige, at i fase 1-2 udviklede vi OGSÅ disse elementer. Men fokus i denne præsentation er på udvikling af læreres kapacitet gennem iterativ proces = aktionslæring.

Slide nummer 22

F33 Slide 15-16-17-18-19-20 viser tilblivelsesprocessen af de midler/værktøjer som vi bruger til at

opbygge lærernes kapacitet. Det er ikke vores hovedhistorie. JEg synes vi skal bruge 1-2 slides max på at sige, at i fase 1-2 udviklede vi OGSÅ disse elementer. Men fokus i denne præsentation er på udvikling af læreres kapacitet gennem iterativ proces = aktionslæring.

(19)

4. How does research account for how the project works in

authentic settings?

15. maj 2018 23

F34

Teacher survey 2 e.g.

15. maj 2018 24

If you made your own teaching aims, note them here

I was very focused by the way to work, that they should learn. Meaning the process. And working in groups. This was this assignment [building a tower]

very good at. It was harder with the subject matter aims, but indirectly they learned much about making stability.

In the teaching sequence there is the following aims

- I can in collaboration with others make a brainstorm with ideas to solve the problem

- I can in collaboration with others work with prototypes of a parachute - I can collaborate on the final model

I acquire knowledge on earthquakes

I know what makes a construction stable and solid

I can construct an earthquake simulator with LEGO wedo 2.0 I can build a construction that can resist wind

I can design a stable catapult from ice-cream sticks I can work together with others

(20)

F34 slide 21-34. Vi skal fortælle, hvordan vi har brugt surveys til at kvalificere lærernes

kapacitetsopbygning i aktionslæringen. Så pointen er at udvælge slides med surveyresultater 1-3 ex og forklare, hvordan vi har brugt data til at kvalificere lærernes arbjede med engineering . Jeg vil foreslå, at vi bygger disse pointer med udgangpsunkt i slide 22-23-27-28-31

(21)

Pupils’ survey – e.g.

15. maj 2018 25

Grade Describe the ways you tried to solve the task

Decribe the investigations you made

8 We started by drawing, and when we had found one we would use, we could see if we needed more of our building materials.

We used our heads and our own creativity.

8 We builded twice in total. The first time it didn’t go very well, but you learn from your mistakes. Second time it was much better.

We investigated what would make the tower stable.

6 We tried to flip the paper, so it would create a better suction, so it would make the little engine work.

How it sucks and how you have to adjust the paper/rotorblades.

4. How does research account for how the project works in authentic settings?

15. maj 2018 26

Development of concepts and models in collaboration between practitioners and educational designers.

The response from the teachers was clear:

- Few and simple models

- Communicate directly to the pupils

- Construction materials should be cheap and easily available - Planning should be easy

The dialogue between teaching material developers and

didactical researcher slowly refined the concepts in the models

and evolved the design criteria for teaching materials.

(22)

14 From phase 1 to 2 – first iteration

15. maj 2018 27

– 3 weeks

– Rewriting the didactical framework – Revising the concepts and the models

– Revising teaching materials and proces cards – Developing new data collection tools

From phase 2 to 3 – second iteration

15. maj 2018 28

– 6 weeks

– Rewriting the didactical framework – Revising the concepts and the models

– Revising teaching materials and proces cards

(23)

0,00 10,00 20,00 30,00 40,00 50,00 60,00 70,00 80,00 90,00 100,00

1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00 3,50 4,00

Engineering-modellen Engineering-karakteristika (liste) Skema over frihedsgrader Evaluerings -rubric

Oplevet nytteværdi af didaktik-komponenter (EiS-lærere i fase 2, N=37)

Gennemsnit % "husker ikke"

Oplevet nytteværdi af didaktik- komponenter

(EiS-lærere, fase 2, N=37)

”Husker ikke” (%) Gen-

nemsnit (%)

Engineering- modellen

Engineering- karakteristika

(liste) Skema m.

frihedsgrader Evaluerings- rubric

Hvem ser ud til at være gladest for EiS – stærke eller svagere elever?

– NB: ”stærke elever” = elever med højt fagligt selvværd: (”jeg klarer mig rigtig godt i naturfag”)

– Analysen inddeler eleverne i 4 kategorier efter fagligt selvværd

– Analysen for alle væsentlige spørgsmål følger samme mønster, som eksemplet her

– Resultatet i modstrid med litteraturen – men giver mening!

Stigende oplevelse af EiS som god variation

”Engineering er med til at skabe en god motivation i undervisningen”

Voksende fagligt selvværd

(24)

16 Evaluation during phase 2 revealed

– Progression was difficult – Assessment was weak

– Controlling pupils/students degrees of freedom was important.

5. How does developed theory in phase 1 connect teachers and pupils

proposed enactment in engineering processes to outcomes?

15. maj 2018 32

(25)

Developed didactical theory connects enactment to outcomes

15. maj 2018 33

Understand the challenge

Introduction and instruction, user dialogue

Ideas Brainstorm, discuss

Research Investigate, inquire, experiment, test materials, user dialogue

Plan Sketch, plan work,

Construct Build, software development, etc.

Improve Asssess, reconstruct, change, Present solution Communicate, user dialogue

Vi har lovet noget om dette

– didactical models, - er med

– differentiation schemes, er omtalt ovenfor – evaluation rubrics and er omtalt ovenfor – teaching materials er omtalt ovenfor

– Måske vil lidt billeder af lærere og elever være en måde

at sige noget om det på.

(26)

18 5. How doesdevelopedtheoryin phase1 & 2

connectteachersand pupils proposedenactmentin engineering processes to outcomes?

15. maj 2018 35

– We have developed a stronger and more coherent scaffold – Clearer and more including conceptualisation of engineering

processes

– More proces and method cards for the individual processes – A differentiation scheme over pupils participation

– A planning tool (structured, guided, open pupils choice) – An evaluation rubric

– New and dedicated developed curriculum materials

– We will be performing surveys and observations again in phase 3

The overall designprocessin the project

May. 2017 Oct. 2017 Jan. 2018 Jan. 201A

(27)

Points for discussion

15. maj 2018 37

– What are our blind spots?

– Where do we have to be cautious when generalising from our specific settings?

We argue that there is a connection between enactment framework, intervention procedure and outcome for pupils and teachers

- Where do you see holes and flaws in our argumentation?

- What factors do you think is decisive for such an intervention?

References

15. maj 2018 38

Dynn, C. L., Agogino, A. M., Eris, O., Frey, D. D., & Leifer, L. J. (2006). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 34(1), 65–65.

https://doi.org/10.110A/EMR.2006.167A078

Kolmos, A., & Grunwald, A. (2017). Engineering – meget mere end praktiske løsninger på praktiske problemer. MONA: Matematik Og Naturfagsdidaktik, 3, A1–A4.

The Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-Based Research: An Emerging Paradigm for Educational Inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.

https://doi.org/10.3102/001318AX032001005

Sillasen, M. K., Daugbjerg, P. S., & Nielsen, K. (2017). Engineering – svaret på naturfagenes udfordringer ? MONA: Matematik- Og Naturfagsdidaktik, 2, 64–82.

Sillasen, M. K., & Valero, P. (2013). Municipal consultants’ participation in building networks to support science teachers’ work. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 1–24.

van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher-student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 271–2A6.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-A127-6

F35

(28)

F35 skal vi have vores ddiaktik 2 på her Forfatter; 03-11-2017