Iterative development of

(1)

Indsæt hjælpelinjer til Højre klik udenfor slidet Indsæt nyt ikon

hvis

Skriv titel på præsentation

Gør tanke til handling VIA University College

Iterative development of engineering didactics

and teaching materials for Danish primary and lower secondary schools

IOSTE 2018 – Malmø

Martin Sillasen (msil@via.dk) Peer Daugbjerg (pd@via.dk)

3. september 2018 1

(2)

Example: Construct an insulating

coffeecup

3. september 2018 2

What is engineering?

(3)

Agenda

3. september 2018 3

– Background

– Iterative and entangled

development of TPD, didactical

theory and curriculum materials

– Discussion

(4)

What is

Project ”Engineering-at-School”?

3. september 2018 4

- 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

(5)

DBR-projectdesign criteriasfor the sub-project:

Didacticsand competencedevelopment

3. september 2018 6

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)

(6)

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

Dissemination phase 2

8-10 municipalities

Approx 400-600 teachers

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

Litterature review

Building TPD capacity

Developing/re-designingcurriculum materials

Didactic 2.0

Didactic 3.0 Didactic 1.0

Didactic 4.0 ?

-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

(7)

9

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

(8)

TPD as actionlearning in local

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

(9)

Data collected

3. september 2018 12

– 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)

(11)

Materials often used

EiS-aktivitet Antal

Det rene vand 9

Jorden ryster 9

Byg et tårn 6

Lodrette haver 4

Byg en støvsuger 3

Havari på indlandsisen 3

Katapult 3

Vulkan 2

Oversvømmelsen 1

”Astra” 3

Naturfagsmaraton 2

Engineering Day

Byg en tidsmåler 4

"Selvlavet" 18

Ikke helt/noget forløb 4

Andet 2

(12)

3. september 2018 15 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

(13)

The EiE

EDP-

model

(14)

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

(15)

Workprocesses as designcriterias

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

(16)

Students degrees of freedom-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 instuctions 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.

(17)

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

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

(18)

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

(19)

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?

(20)

Points for discussion 02

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?

(21)

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.