VIA University College Denmark

(1)

VIA University College Denmark

Education in Denmark

1

Mette H. H. Hansen (mhhh@via.dk) Peer Daugbjerg (pd@via.dk)

Agenda

20. december 2018 2

– Introduction

– Engineering challenge

– You will construct a thermo cup – Didactical theory

– Curriculum materials – Discussion

– Education for sustainability – Mette takes over

– But keep on measuring

(2)

VIA University College Engineering didactics and teaching materials for Danish primary and lower secondary schools

Utrecht - November 2018 Peer Daugbjerg (pd@via.dk) Martin Sillasen (msil@via.dk)

20. december 2018 3

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 prototype.

(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)

20. december 2018 4

F29

(3)

(4)

Example:

Construct a thermo cup

20. december 2018 5

What is engineering?

Work-processes as design criterias

Understand 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

(5)

Materials often

used

EiS-activity Number

Clean water 9

Earth quake 9

Build a tower 6

Vertical gardens 4

Build a vacuum cleaner 3

Alert on the ice cap 3

Catapult 3

Vulcano 2

Flood 1

”Astra” (a science materials center) 3

Science maraton 2

Engineering Day

Build a times meter(measurer) 4

Own production 18

No complete teaching plan 4

Other 2

Hot Chocolate An engineering challenge

– You must make insulation for a cup, that can keep a fluid hot. What materials will you use? How will you construct the cup?

– The container must be able to keep the fluid at at least 50 ^o C after 30 minutes.

– The insulating layer must not be thicker than 3 cm.

– Build a prototype

– Expand your knowlegde on insulation

– Measure the cooling of the fluid

– Optimize and develop further

(6)

20. december 2018 9

Example:

Construct a thermo cup

20. december 2018 10

Measure time and temperature

(7)

How would you do this with children and youngsters?

– Plan – Perform – Assess

– Improve/develop

What would you need as supporting structures?

– Engineering design proces model – Planning tools

– Deciding pupil/students freedom – Box with the physical material

– Dialogue with/support from colleagues

– Assessment rubric

(8)

What is

Project ”Engineering-at-School”?

- A joint, coordinated, national effort - Purpose:

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

- Facilitate students learning in technology and science

- Improve students interest in science and technology Partners: Engineering the Future, ASTRA, House of Science and VIA University College

Overall project design

EntangledTPD, didacticand curriculum development

Development phase

4 schools 12 teachers

Test phase

35 schools

58 teachers

Dissemination phase 1

65 schools

95 + 435 teachers 30 principals

Approx 400-600 teachers

May. 2017 Oct. 2017 Jan. 2018 Jan. 2019

Litterature review

Building TPD capacity

Developing/re-designingcurriculummaterials Didactic2.0

Didactic3.0 Didactic1.0

Didactic4.0 ? -Rewriting the didactic

framework

-Revising the concepts and the models -Revising curriculum materials and proces cards

-Developing new data collection tools

-Rewriting the didactic framework

-Revising the concepts

and the models

-Revising teaching

materials and proces

cards

(9)

Overall project design

Engineering-at-School (EiS)

EntangledTPD, didacticand curriculum development

Development phase

4 schools 12 teachers

Test phase

35 schools

58 teachers

65 schools

95 + 435 teachers 30 principals

Approx 400-600 teachers

May. 2017 Oct. 2017 Jan. 2018 Jan. 2019

Litterature review

Building TPD capacity

Developing/re-designingcurriculummaterials Didactic2.0

Didactic3.0 Didactic1.0

Didactic4.0 ?

Data collected

– Teacher survey during ws 1

– Teachers immediate response 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 photo stories from engineering teaching

– Teacher reflections on teaching material and models

during ws 3

(10)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

0-5 timer 6-10 timer 11-15 timer 16-20 timer over 20 timer

% af folrøbene

Tidsforbrug på det samlede forløb

Time for E-activities

(11)

The EiE- model of

EDP

Students degrees of freedom –a planning rubric

Proces Structured Guided Open

Understand challenge

Groups work with teacher- formulated understanding of the challenge

Groups choose from a list Groups interprete their own understanding of the problem

Ideas The teacher direct the brainstorm

Groups choose how their brainstorm is structured

Groups organize their own brainstorm

Research Groups work from precise instructions about how to find knowledge about the challenge

Groups choose between strategies to learn about the challenge

Groups choose themselves how they will attain knowledge

Plan Groups work from precise

instructions

Groups choose between different planningstrategies supplied by the teacher

Groups plan their own designstrategy

Construct Teacher determine materials, tools and constructionproces

Groups choose between materials, and tools supplied by the teacher. Teacher guide how groups construct the prototype.

Groups choose themselves materials, tools and construction proces

Improve Teacher determine

testprocedure and guide groups to assess their prototype

Groups choose between testprocedures and assess their prototype according to given criterias

Groups choose themselves how to test prototype and assessmentcriterias for improvement Present Teacher instruct groups how to

present solution

Groups follow a template for presentation, but do their own planning

Groups choose autonomously media and format for their presentation.

(12)

An assessment rubric

- aimed for the students/pupils

Starter In transit Completed Exemplary

Understand challenge

I can sufficiently understand simple parts of the challenge

I have an uncertain understanding of the challenge

I have a good understanding of the challenge and its context

I understand the challenge completely and its relation to the societal context

Ideas I can develop simple ideas for the prototype

I am uncertain about developing ideas and discussing possible solutions

I am confident about combining ideas to a feasible solution

I am very confident about combining ideas from others in my contribution for a possible solution

Research My knowledge about the challenge is limited and I can do simple investigations

I am uncertain about doing investigations about parts of the problem

I have good skills and knowledge about invatigating my problem

I can with certainty investigate my problem and analyse data with a critical perspective

Plan I can primitively outline for solving the challenge with materialchoices for the prototype

I am uncertain about choosing and processing materials for the prototype

I am certain that I can choose and process materials for the prototype

I can with great confidence choose between different materials for the prototype and argue for pros and cons of my choices

Construct I can construct a simple prototype which does not work very well

I am uncertain about making a prototype that only solves the challenge partially

I am good at constructing a prototype that almost solves the challenge

I can certainly build a prototype that solves the challenge and shows pros and cons in my choices during the designproces

Improve I can make a simple assessment of my prototype suggest simple improvements

I am uncertain about testing my prototype

I can combine testprocedures to test my prototype using given criterias

I can certainly test my prototype and discuss possible improvements with peers

Present solution

I can uncoherently present my solution and use scientific and technical language to explain functionality

I am uncertain about presenting my solution. I alternate between everyday language technical and scientific language when explaining the functionality

I can coherently choose between different presentationformats that are optimal for presenting the solution. I alternate between everyday language and technical and scientific language when explaining the functionality

I can make a well structured presentation using formats of my own choosing. I alternate with centainty between everyday language and technical and scientific language when explaining the functionality

(13)

Example:

Construct a thermo cup

How is your coolig going

Hot chocolate

https://astra.dk/tildinundervisning/varm-kakao

(14)

Available teaching materials

20. december 2018 25 2018 - Utrecht

Three dimensions in science ‘lingo’

26

Makro level

Natural phenomenon

”seen from outside”

Description

Representation

Model, formula, symbols, images, lingo

Mikro level

explanations

Atoms, structures, processes

(15)

Applied to hot chocolate in cup

27

Mikro level

Particle theory Isolation Heat transmission

Coolingcurve How is it going?

28

(16)

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

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

Teachers’ experiencedusefullnessof didacticalmodels (N=37)

EDP-model Average: 3,29

Engineering- characteristca

Average: 2,70

”Degrees-of- freedom

rubric”

Average: 2,59 Assessment Rubric Average: 2,36

DBR-projectdesign criteriasfor the sub-project:

Didacticsand competencedevelopment

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)

(17)

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

learning are intertwined?

32

Organisation

Didactical group: 4-5 (VIA + UCC)

Curriculum materials: 5 (Astra)

TPD group: 7 (VIA) + 2 (UCC)

4 municipalities: teachers and

science coordinators

Projectmanagement: 2

Formative feedback: 1

Focusgroup: Engineeringdidactical

experts from universities in DK

(18)

professional learning communities

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

(Van der Pol et al, 2010)

(19)

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

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

Faded Support

Transfer of responsibility Scaffolding

Action learning

Network learning environment

Organizing local PLC’s

Building capacities in

each municipality

(20)

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

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

- descriptive

(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

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

(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.

Forfatter; 17-03-2018

(23)

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

authentic settings?

Teacher survey 2 e.g.

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

(24)

(25)

Pupils’ survey – e.g.

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?

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.

(26)

From phase 1 to 2 – first iteration

– 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

– 6 weeks

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

– Revising teaching materials and proces cards

(27)

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

(28)

Evaluation during phase 2 revealed

20. december 2018 49 ETEN 2018 - Rotterdam

– Progression was difficult – Assessment was weak

– Controlling pupils/students degrees of freedom was important.

Vi har lovet noget om dette

20. december 2018 50 ETEN 2018 - Rotterdam

– 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.

(29)

Summingup

– 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

Points for discussion 01

We have performed entangled and iterative development of a TPD-programme, didactical theory and curriculum-materials.

– What are the qualities ?

– What are the benefits of the openness the DBR approach creates for participant influence?

– Is the generated ownership specific og general?

– What are the pitfalls ?

– Does the framework of our iterations limit the validity of our materials?

– Can the participants provide significant changes?

– What are our blind spots ?

– Can you self-improve your own design?

– What kinds of evaluation or intervention can illuminate the

dark spots in our design?

(30)

We have worked with introducing engineering in primary and lower secondary school:

- Is this on the agenda in your similar schools?

- How do you implement it?

- What kind of didactical models do you subscribe to or develop?

- What kind of TPD do you apply?

- How do you develop teaching materials?

References

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/10.1109/EMR.2006.1679078

Kolmos, A., & Grunwald, A. (2017). Engineering – meget mere end praktiske løsninger på praktiske problemer. MONA: Matematik Og Naturfagsdidaktik, 3, 91–94.

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

https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032001005

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), 271–296.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6

F35

(31)

VIA University College Denmark