koretsky talk falconer lewis session - cachecache.org/files/win17-koretsky-no-lecturing.pdf ·...

1/28/2017

1

School of Chemical, Biological and Environmental Engineering

No More Lecturing! What John Falconer Has Done for Student

Learning

Milo Koretsky


Concept Warehouse

• Create a community of Learning focused on concept-based instruction

• Lower the activation barrier to promoteimplementation of concept-based instruction and active learning

Cyber-enabled infrastructure for conceptual questions

1/28/2017

2


The AIChE Concept Warehouse


At Launch,2012 ChE Summer School

1/28/2017

3


Concept Warehouse: Propagation of ConcepTests

Gilbuena, Smith, and Koretsky, Educational Technology Research and Development(2016)

JF

JF


Example Question: What students see when you assign online

Multiple Choice Answer Selections

Question text

Plus Figure

Written Reflection(optional)

Confidence(optional)

1/28/2017

4

School of Chemical, Biological and Environmental EngineeringJohn L. FalconerConcepTests

Instructional

Design


Lecture / Reading

Homework Due

ConcepTestsin Class

(Peer Instruction)

Instructional Sequence

1/28/2017

5


Instructor assigns a

conceptual question

Students answer

individually

Students discuss in

groups

Instructor reassigns the

question

Students re-answer

individually

Instructor shows class

response and discusses

Peer Instruction

Students teach/learn from fellow students-- encourage cooperation‒ more engaged class‒ students hear alternate explanations

Students determine how well they understand

Instructor gets feedback from everyone

Students motivated to be prepared; attendance higher

Students articulate reasoning

John L. Falconer ConcepTests

Falconer’s Advantages – Peer Instruction

1/28/2017

6


Lecture / Reading

Homework Due

ConcepTestsin Class

(Peer Instruction)


Higher LevelBloom


Imbedded

Assessment

1/28/2017

7


Lecture / Reading

Homework Due

ConcepTestsin Class

(Peer Instruction)

Instructional Sequence (Assessment)


Homework – traditional (Year 1)

1/28/2017

8


Homework – electronic (Year 2)


Homework Due

ConcepTestsin Class

(Peer Instruction)


Year 1 Year 2

Collect DataHere

Lecture / Reading

1/28/2017

9


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

10% 23% 35% 48% 60% 73% 85% 98% 100%

Number of Students

Percentage Correct

Conventional HW

Electronic HW

Responses to ConcepTests in Matirialand Energy Balances

32 Identical ConcepTests

Prof. Adam Higgins

Year 1

Year 2


Learning

Research

1/28/2017

10


Example Question: What students see when you assign online

Multiple Choice Answer Selections

Question text

Plus Figure

Written Reflection(optional)

Confidence(optional)

• Split, Crossover Design– Same lecture– Two large recitation sections

• One section writes explanation = Treatment (Tr)• One section does not = Comparison (Com)• Alternate sections every 2 – 3 weeks

– Compare answers to 39 ConcepTests across two cohorts

– Chi‐squared test, = 0.05– For Com group, qualitatively code reasoning (1= poor; 4 = well reasoned)

Influence of Writing Justifications (Tr) vs. not (Com)

1/28/2017

11

Effectn questions

Expected

Tr > Com ~1

Tr = Com ~37

Tr < Com ~1


Koretsky, Brooks, and Higgins, International Journal of Science Education (2016)

39 Questions= 0.05

If the treatment had no effect, we would expect:

Effect n questionsTreatment Comparison Treatment Comparison

<%> <%> <n students> <n students>

Tr > Com 15 65% 50% 66 68

Tr = Com 19 58% 57% 66 67

Tr < Com 5 56% 69% 69 69


39 Questions= 0.05

Koretsky, Brooks, and Higgins, International Journal of Science Education (2016)

1/28/2017

12

EffectEasy Moderate Difficult

Tr > Com

(% correct) (85%) (65%) (23%)

Ncorrect 72 39 18

Ncode=4 53 21 7

Tr < Com

(% correct)

NA

(59%) (22%)

Ncorrect 47 16

Ncode=4 11 1

75% ̅ 50% ̅ 50%̅ 75%

How Many Students Can Justify Their Answer?

Effect n questionsTreatment Comparison Treatment Comparison

<%> <%> <n students> <n students>

Tr > Com 15 65% 50% 66 68

Tr = Com 19 58% 57% 66 67

Tr < Com 5 56% 69% 69 69


Koretsky, Brooks, and Higgins, Journal of Engineering Education, forthcoming

39 Questions= 0.05

Expanding Piston(Falconer)

Balloon Rising(Someone else)

Isomorphic Questions

1/28/2017

13

Expanding Piston(Falconer)

Balloon Rising

Looking at the Explanations

Koretsky et al., Journal of Engineering Education (2016)

Balloon RisingExpanding Piston (Falconer)

1/28/2017

14

Expanding Piston

(Modified)

Koretsky et al., Journal of Engineering Education(2016)


Collaborators

Student ResearchersDebra Gilbuena, PostDocBill Brooks, PostDocChristina Smith, PhDKritsa Chinandon, PhDAlec Bowen, HBSRachel White, BSDaniel Reid, BSMatt Boggess, BSCole Morgan, BSMatt Kirsch, BS

FacultyJohn Falconer, University of ColoradoAdam Higgins, Oregon State UniversitySteve Krause, Arizona State University Carl Lira, Michigan State UniversityMarina Miletic, Miletic Educational ConsultingRon Miller, Colorado School of MinesMike Prince, Bucknell UniversityBrian Self, Cal Poly SLODavid Silverstein, University of KentuckyMargot Vigeant, Bucknell University

• Beta Testers

• The developing community who has contributed to and used the Concept Warehouse

1/28/2017

15


Acknowledgements

• National Science Foundation • DUE - 1023099, 1022957, 1022875,

1022785• DUE - 1245482, • DUE - 1225456 (Krause Lead) • DUE - 1225221 (Vigeant Lead).

• LL Stewart Scholar Program

• Technology Resource Program

*Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.


http://cw.edudiv.org

koretsky talk falconer lewis session - cachecache.org/files/win17-koretsky-no-lecturing.pdf ·...

Documents