117 lines
40 KiB
Plaintext
117 lines
40 KiB
Plaintext
FROM THEORY TO PRACTICE: IMPROVING LEARNING THROUGH ACTION ORIENTATION IN ACADEMIC EDUCATION
|
||
T.N. Jambor
|
||
Leibniz University Hannover (GERMANY)
|
||
Abstract
|
||
Action orientation is an approach that has been mandatory and used in the German vocational training system for years. It is an implementation of constructivist learning theory, so that the focus is on learners actively developing their own knowledge structures. The approach can be defined in terms of individual characteristics (C1 - C6). The successful implementation of the approach in learning units is supported by individual determinants (D1 - D10). This article analyses the suitability of action orientation for academic engineering education. In this context, it is important to consider the obstacles that may exist in a university setting. Since the author of this paper focuses on the introductory phase of the study, the large cohorts (> 100 students) can be seen as the main challenge. This implies that there is a weak relationship between students and lecturer. In addition, large cohorts require large lecture rooms, which make group work difficult due to rigid seating arrangements. Furthermore, large cohorts are often given written exams due to lack of resources. These often focus on factual knowledge and are only partially suitable as competency-based exams. The timing of each course, typically 90 minutes, makes it difficult for students to work longer. Finally, the acceptance of activity-based formats in universities is a potential challenge. Based on these potential challenges, some implementation tips are derived to enable the use of the activity-based approach. Finally, the article presents two courses in which the individual determinants of action orientation are implemented. Both courses show that action orientation is possible even in a university with large cohorts.
|
||
Keywords: action orientation, introductory study phase, fundamentals of electrical engineering.
|
||
1 INTRODUCTION
|
||
In Germany, action orientation is a prescribed concept to be used in vocational schools. Action orientation is the implementation of the constructivist approach described in the next chapter. It also makes it possible to take account of changes in vocational requirements. For example, the high division of labour and the resulting strong focus of skilled workers on individual, very specific aspects (e.g. repair of a particular consumer electronics device) are no longer common. The modern skilled worker must be able to solve complex, networked and, above all, interdisciplinary problems, so his or her qualifications must be appropriate. This means that skilled workers need to gain experience of working in teams during their vocational training. They must structure their knowledge and experience in such a way that they are able to encounter and solve new problems in their professional practice.
|
||
Of course, these requirements also apply to future engineers, which is why an action-oriented approach also makes sense at the university. However, because of the large cohorts, universities offer lectures that are lecturer-centred and structured according to a reference discipline (here: electrical engineering). Lectures of this kind are accompanied by exercises, laboratories, and projects, so that the problem-related linking of the acquired knowledge takes place as a downstream second step, so that there is a certain action orientation. Of course, a stronger action orientation is possible, which will be shown in this article.
|
||
The following is an outline of constructivist principles, although only a brief approach can be presented here. The constructivist didactics of electrical engineering, which forms the overarching framework for the author's teaching activities, is then briefly considered. This is followed by a description of the concept of action orientation, focusing on its characteristics and determinants. Finally, two of the author's courses, which implement action orientation to varying degrees, are presented. They are part of the introductory phase of the electrical engineering courses at the Leibniz University of Hannover and are intended to show that action orientation is also possible at university level. The article concludes with a summary of recommendations for the implementation of action-oriented learning and teaching arrangements at the university and with an outlook.
|
||
|
||
Proceedings of INTED2024 Conference 4th-6th March 2024, Valencia, Spain
|
||
|
||
2687
|
||
|
||
ISBN: 978-84-09-59215-9
|
||
|
||
2 CONSTRUCTIVIST THEORY
|
||
As a theory of cognition and learning, constructivism plays a central role in contemporary didactics and provides a basis for action orientation. Due to the scope of this article, only the most important aspects of this theory will be considered below. The separation between subjective (constructed) reality and objective (mind-independent) reality is fundamental to constructivism ([1]). Objective reality is not directly accessible to people through their senses. Rather, it is constructed by people as their own subjective reality, so that it depends on the individual. Such a distinction can be illustrated by an example. An existing dog is perceived by a child growing up in Germany as a playmate and is associated with certain characteristics in the construct "dog" within the child's subjective reality. The same dog is seen by a child growing up in the polar regions as a farm animal that is harnessed to a sled to transport people and objects. The associated characteristics are certainly different from those mentioned above, so the child's subjective reality is structured differently. Of course, the example is very simplified, but I think it illustrates well the distinction between subjective and objective reality. PESCHL ([2]) refines this distinction and defines three worlds. World 1 can be compared to objective reality and world 2 to subjective reality. World 3 represents the common reality of a society (e.g. culture, scientific models), which is defined, constantly questioned and, if necessary, adapted through communication between people ([2]).
|
||
In constructivism, the human being is seen as a closed system that cannot be directly influenced. The system acts based on internal structures (subjective reality), so that it can be described as a structurally determined system. It is structurally coupled to its environment ([3]). Through the structural coupling (e.g. the specialized language of the reference discipline) the system can be stimulated by its environment (perturbation, [3]) to adapt, whereby the stimulation must be viable. According to GLASERFELD, viability describes the property of perturbations to be useful for the individual ([4]), so that this property, like the system itself, is structurally determined. Because of its structural determinism, the system behaves to a certain extent unpredictably for other systems. MATURANA uses the term "contingency" here, which also describes the freedom of the system not to be determined by the environment, but only by its own structures ([5]).
|
||
With regard to learning processes, PIAGET sees the pursuit of equilibrium within one's own internal structures as a central goal ([1], [6]). This means that perturbations can bring the system into a cognitive imbalance, which is maintained or restored by internal adaptation. PIAGET calls this process equilibration, which can be seen as a compromise between assimilation and accommodation. Under assimilation he subsumes the absorption of external information and new experiences into existing structures, so that the information and experiences find a counterpart in similar structures (common explanatory patterns). The process of accommodation leads to further structural changes, because the new information or new experiences imply an adaptation of the existing structures ([1], [6]). Structural changes are not possible at any given scale, which is why they are frequently referred to as drift zones. The drift zones describe the possibilities for a system to adapt to a perturbation in order to establish its own equilibrium. In addition, the drift zones describe the area in which the learner feels cognitively and emotionally comfortable. However, they can be extended through learning processes so that incomprehensible content gradually becomes more comprehensible to the learner. Outside the drift zones, explanatory patterns may emerge that are perceived as threatening to the learner's own structures and incomprehensible (e.g. mathematical descriptions of electrical engineering content). Such a threat can be reduced by reframing ([7]) by placing the new content into familiar frames. An example of this is a student who found mathematical functions incomprehensible and inaccessible. As a result, this content was outside the drift zone so that assimilation and accommodation were not possible. Due to his previous practical experience, the mathematical functions were temporarily seen as characteristic curves of electronic components, so that looking at them did not cause any anxiety. This shows that reframing places the mathematical concept in a familiar context and thus facilitates the learning processes.
|
||
Finally, it must be emphasized that learning can only take place actively by the learner. A transfer of knowledge between the lecturer and the learner is not possible, so the lecturer only has to create perturbations in order to imitate the adaptation of the system (learning). This changed role of the lecturer through constructivism is the starting point of the author's constructivist didactics of electrical engineering.
|
||
3 CONSTRUCTIVIST DIDACTICS OF ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING
|
||
In addition to the constructivist approach, the concept of human being is central to Constructivist Didactics of Electrical Engineering (cDoEE) ([8]). It is based on the philosophical assumptions of Transactional Analysis, which was significantly defined by STEWART and JOINES. It is, on the one hand, a theory of human personality and, on the other hand, a theory of communication which is very well
|
||
2688
|
||
|
||
suited to the analysis of communication processes within learning and teaching processes. The following central philosophical assumptions apply to both Transactional Analysis and cDoEE ([9]):
|
||
• “People are OK": This position prioritizes the dignity of people, as lecturers accept themselves and learners as they are. This does not imply a general acceptance of the learner's behaviour. Furthermore, this perspective implies that there is no hierarchy of people, only that the roles assumed by lecturers and learners imply certain hierarchies.
|
||
• “Everyone has the capacity to think" means that both lecturers and learners are responsible for their own decisions and the consequences of those decisions. This means that learners must actively make their own decisions for or against learning.
|
||
• “People decide their own destiny": As part of this belief, transactional analysis emphasizes that people can change and revise their decisions and behaviors. Transactional analysts believe that lasting change is possible.
|
||
The overall aim of cDoEE is to design and evaluate learning and teaching processes in electrical engineering with a focus on the fundamentals of electrical engineering. The concept provides a framework that can be used to plan and reflect on learning and teaching processes. With regard to the learners, the following intentions of the cDoEE should be mentioned:
|
||
• The learner's motivation for the abstract basics of electrical engineering is a key success factor in the learning and teaching processes to be designed and should be promoted.
|
||
• Unhelpful preconceptions in the fundamentals of electrical engineering should be counteracted.
|
||
• The importance of subject knowledge should be strengthened, as it is an important basis for further content, especially in the fundamentals of electrical engineering.
|
||
• In addition, the development of inert knowledge should be avoided, so that the focus is on competence-oriented teaching. The term "inert knowledge" refers to knowledge that has been built up by the individual but cannot be used spontaneously to solve problems. Access to this knowledge is only possible after an impulse from outside ([10]).
|
||
The individual intentions are based on the constructivist approach. Especially the first and the last point require an action-oriented approach, as it promotes motivation through practical relevance and counteracts inert knowledge through active engagement with action products.
|
||
4 ACTION ORIENTATION
|
||
Action orientation is a concept that can be defined in different ways and differs from the conventional approach. The conventional approach is more instructor-centered, assumes the possibility of knowledge transfer, structures content more like the reference discipline rather than problem-oriented, and is used primarily for lectures and classroom exercises. Even if individual aspects of this approach do not make constructivist sense, it is not wrong per se. In most cases, a combination of the conventional approach with the action orientation makes sense, so it is not rejected in the context of cDoEE, but rather seen as expedient. Moreover, a strict separation of these approaches does not always make sense. For example, a (short) presentation by the lecturer can be seen as a form of the traditional approach or as a perturbation within the action-oriented approach. This aspect is taken up in the presentation of the exemplary courses, so that the author's definition of action orientation is presented first. It should be emphasized that the individual aspects were taken from the literature and compiled by the author.
|
||
The definition of action orientation is based on characteristics that each aspect derives from the constructivist approach to the concept. The order should not be seen as a prioritization of the characteristics, as they are considered equally important in defining the concept. Determinants are then derived from the characteristics. These, in turn, define an action-oriented learning and teaching arrangement. The order of the determinants is also not important. In summary, the characteristics describe an abstract concept that is implemented by the determinants. Fig. 1 summarizes the characteristics and the determinants.
|
||
5 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ACTION ORIENTATED CONCEPT
|
||
The subject reference (C1) is the starting point of the learning and teaching processes and at the same time the most important prerequisite for the success of these processes. The approach of determining the internal structure and the drift zones of the individual learner is central here since the learning
|
||
2689
|
||
|
||
processes build on the existing structures and begin within the drift zones. In addition, these drift zones should be expanded through the learning processes and form the basis for future learning processes in the sense of the circularity of learning. In this way, the drift zones can be understood as the starting point and goal of the learning activities, which are located in the subjective reality of the learners. Furthermore, the thematic reference is the main source of motivation for learners, as it takes into account the widest possible range of their interests and gives them as much freedom as possible to organize their own learning processes. This requires that learners take responsibility for their learning processes and are actively involved in developing the necessary competences. The focus is not only on planning, but also on reaching agreement with lecturers on objectives, content, and learning methodology.
|
||
Figure 1 Characteristics and determinants of action orientation Active participation in the development of individual competences is promoted by the holistic approach (C2). This means that the focus is not only on learners' cognition, but also on their psychomotor skills and emotions. While cognitive aspects are always addressed in a typical course, the other two aspects must be explicitly taken into account. Furthermore, the fundamentals of electrical engineering as a subject area of cDoEE pose a challenge for lecturers because the content is abstract and, for the most part, cannot be accessed directly through the senses (lack of psychomotor aspects). On the other hand, they are not associated with emotions due to the lack of practical relevance for learners at first sight (C5: Practical Relevance). These aspects have to be taken into account in the planning, with the above-mentioned characteristic of " subject reference " (C1) being of crucial importance, especially with regard to the affective aspects. The third characteristic of action orientation is action regulation (C3) as a guiding approach, which implies a procedure within the learning and teaching processes. It combines intrinsic and extrinsic motivation by providing the motivating action with an attractive goal (especially C1 and D5) on the one hand and the consequences (presentable results) on the other. The approach thus takes into account personal and situational motives and guides the learner through goal formation and selection, goal realization, and intention deactivation. This includes weighing whether the action should be taken, planning the action, and monitoring the results and consequences after the action (process-oriented
|
||
2690
|
||
|
||
perspective). At the same time, learners form a hierarchy of goals by defining sub-goals within the process and monitoring their achievement. In this way, learners' control mechanisms are directly transferred to the design of learning and teaching arrangements.
|
||
The three dimensions of holism (C2) are also the dimensions of the content of the action objectives (C4), which represent a further characteristic and show the hierarchy already mentioned in C3. They link the desired results and their cognitive representation. In addition, they serve personal identification with the results of one's own learning process and can be used as evaluation standards.
|
||
The action objectives (C4) are of a general nature, so that any action can initially be focused on them. This is limited by practical relevance (C5) as the fifth characteristic of action orientation. This characteristic focuses the learning and teaching processes more strongly on the current and future interests of the learners. Within the learning and teaching arrangements, the individual actions can be located in the business and work processes and make it easier for the learners to link the individual dependencies within the learning area. However, this can only be achieved if the subject-centered view is replaced by an interdisciplinary view with subject-related focal points.
|
||
Finally, metacommunication (C6), which is essential for learning processes, is the last characteristic of action orientation according to the cDoEE. In addition to self-observation, it is an important prerequisite for recognizing one's own unhelpful preconceptions. It also enables the improvement of learning and teaching processes, as it provides important information for the design of learning and teaching arrangements and thus makes a further contribution to subject orientation (C1).
|
||
In addition to the six characteristics, the characteristic "openness of the school/university" should be mentioned here. It summarizes the openness towards the inside and the outside. This characteristic can be considered on its own or as a consequence of the other characteristics. For example, the characteristic "practical relevance" (C5) implies the cooperation of lecturers in expert teams and the exchange with science, economy, and politics, because the realistic problems within learning and teaching arrangements cannot be realized without such cooperation. Furthermore, the need to open up (higher) education can be derived from the reference to the subject reference (C1) and the holistic approach (C2), because only through such an opening can the interests of the learners be taken into account by current impulses from the world outside the school. This promotes the affective side of the learning and teaching process. Since this characteristic cannot be directly and immediately influenced by individual lecturers, it is considered an optional characteristic. This should not be interpreted as a sign that this characteristic is unimportant. Rather, it is a sign that this characteristic must be taken into account at the organizational level of the school/university.
|
||
6 DETERMINANTS OF ACTION ORIENTATED LEARNING AND TEACHING ARRANGEMENTS
|
||
While the characteristics focus on the concept of action orientation, the determinants describe the requirements for a learning and teaching arrangement in accordance with this concept. For this reason, the determinants are derived from the characteristics, although a one-to-one correlation is not always possible.
|
||
Based on the subject reference (C1), internal differentiation (D1), which can take place in relation to different lines of differentiation (e.g. prior knowledge, prior learning and methodological experience, etc.), is an unavoidable determinant. The aim is to accompany and support learners as individually as possible in their personal learning process. The number of learners, their many differences and the diversity of their characteristics, as well as the existing framework conditions, including the lecturers' own resources, pose a challenge. In the case of large cohorts, it is possible to divide selected lines of differentiation with the help of written diagnostic elements and subsequent subdivision into groups. It is not necessary, for example, to integrate all measures into the respective learning and teaching arrangement. In some cases, it may be useful to provide additional support as supplemental programs.
|
||
Another determinant derived from the subject reference (C1) is the learner's degree of freedom (D2). This is particularly concerned with the self-control of the learner. This determinant can be identified by the possibilities for learners to influence the design of learning and teaching arrangements within the creative leeway given to lecturers in the planning process. This means that lecturers do not give up their decision-making power, but are given a supporting instance (learners).
|
||
Finally, the subject reference (C1) and the associated learner's degree of freedom (D2) imply a transparency of the learning objectives and decisions (D3) that are set and made by all persons
|
||
2691
|
||
|
||
(e.g. learners, lecturers, parents) involved in the learning and teaching arrangement. This is achieved through planned exchanges between learners and lecturers before, during and after individual learning and teaching arrangements. Transparency has a positive effect on the emotional side of the holistic approach (C2).
|
||
The characteristic of action regulation (C3) leads to an action structure (D4). According to this, the learning and teaching arrangements are divided into the phases of "information", "planning", "decision", "action", "checking" and "evaluation". At the beginning, learners are in the problem-setting phase, which motivates learners to work on the problem. This phase is not part of the conventional model, which consists of only the six phases. In the informing phase, learners gather all the information they need to achieve their objectives. The planning phase is used to define the steps needed to achieve the objectives, which are (initially) determined in the deciding phase. In the implementation phase, the action is carried out and completed. The subsequent control phase focuses on the action product (D5), which is checked against the requirements. The evaluation phase closes the circle and focuses on evaluating the process used to solve the problem. Each of these phases can also consist of six other phases. This hierarchy of processes follows from the fact that the action objectives (C4) also have a hierarchy, so that the subordinate processes pursue the sub-objectives of the superordinate process. When designing learning and teaching arrangements, it is important to ensure that the entire structure of the action is recognizable to the learner and is always present. In some cases, it is possible to shorten the individual phases considerably, but the learner must also be aware of this.
|
||
The characteristic "action objectives" (C4) cannot be meaningfully realized without an action product (D5) since such objectives could only be pursued in a cognitively constructed space. From the cDoEE's point of view, this is not expedient, which means that the existence of an action product is an important determinant. However, this does not necessarily have to be a material product. Rather, the focus is on the publishability of the product, which means that both a newly constructed or repaired device and a poster describing an algorithm meet this criterion. In all cases, the action product ensures that immaterial (cognitive) and material actions are combined. Despite this extended definition of the action product, which allows for immaterial action products, the fact that the reference of the learning and teaching process must be a technical object, or a technical project must not be neglected. This is necessary and derives from the characteristic "practical relevance" (C5). In addition, the action product contributes to performance motivation because the results of the learning and teaching process can be recognized and evaluated through the action products.
|
||
In particular, the characteristic "practical relevance" (C5) can be used to derive a requirement for a complex action product. Only such an action product can be regarded as meaningful for longer learning and teaching arrangements that have an action structure (D4). In addition, such a complex action product makes it possible to see it as a complete system with clear system boundaries, subsystems and other constructive elements. This system reference (D6) has a structuring effect for the learner in the sense of constructivism and systematizes the analysis and synthesis processes within the learning and teaching arrangements, since the subsystems and elements can be divided into sensors or input, signal processing and actuators or output.
|
||
The complexity of the action product and the associated tasks within the learning and teaching arrangements allow the integration of further interdisciplinary learning objectives. In the field of electrical engineering, interdisciplinarity (D7) and the associated interdisciplinary approach make it possible to consider problems from economics and political science, as they represent important framework conditions for technical action. In addition, mechanical engineering and computer science are further scientific disciplines that extend or make possible the products of electrical engineering. Finally, language skills (especially German and English) and key competences (e.g. project management, time management, etc.) as well as mathematics should be integrated as a "subject-related language" in order to do justice to the practical relevance (C5) and the holistic approach (C2). In the school sector, crosscurricular teaching is the implementation of the interdisciplinary approach.
|
||
Cooperative learning (D8) is another possibility opened up by complex action products. Complexity provides a justification for cooperative learning that is comprehensible to all participants, so that cooperative processes are not artificially set up, but initiated as needed. This requires an exchange between the individual learners, which makes an important contribution to metacommunication (C6), since the perception of others can be reflected on in addition to the self-perception.
|
||
The constructivist approach and the associated determinants "learner's degree of freedom" (D2) and "cooperative learning" (D8) imply a change in the role of the lecturer, who moves from a dispenser of knowledge to a mentor or a coach. This makes it necessary to establish and maintain a layer of support
|
||
2692
|
||
|
||
and reflection (D9) within the learning and teaching arrangements. The partly passive role of the lecturer opens up opportunities to better meet the requirements of subject relatedness (C1) and internal differentiation (D1). The structure of these two layers includes not only the lecturer's activities within the learning and teaching arrangements, but also the preparation of materials that support the learning and teaching processes themselves and their reflection. Finally, the open assessment of learning outcomes (D10) is the necessary consequence of the action-oriented approach and the final determinant. In addition to the outcomes of the learning and teaching processes, it is necessary to consider the process itself, as this is the only way to determine the achievement of competence-oriented and holistic learning objectives (C1 and C2). Furthermore, only such an open assessment can have a motivating effect on the learners, since the assessable results here include all aspects of the learning and teaching activities and can thus increase the motivation to perform. In addition, such an open assessment of learning outcomes creates practical relevance (C5), as this is common in the working world. As with the presentation of the characteristics, another aspect must be mentioned here that is not described as a regular determinant. This is the integrated learning space that enables the meaningful creation, processing, and presentation of the action products. In the context of cDoEE this aspect is not seen as a regular determinant, but rather as a requirement for the organization of (higher) education, which is indispensable for the success of activity-based learning and teaching arrangements. Without neglecting the importance of this aspect, it can be considered a determining factor because it cannot be directly influenced by individual lecturers in the short term. In addition, the need to open up (higher) education institutions can be seen as an impetus to enter into cooperation with other educational institutions and the economy.
|
||
7 PRACTICAL METHODS IN ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING
|
||
The course "Practical Methods in Electrical Engineering" (PMEE) is designed for first and second semester electrical engineering students. The main objective of the course is to reduce unhelpful preconceptions about the fundamentals of electrical engineering. An example of such an unhelpful preconception is shown in Fig. 2. Students determine the current I1 and find that the voltage U1 is equal to the supply voltage UB. Since the level at the negative terminal of the voltage source is the reference level, they correctly conclude that the voltage U2 is 0V. They also conclude that the current I2 must be 0 A. This is incorrect and shows that the cause (current flow) and effect (voltage drop) are being confused in the analysis.
|
||
Figure 2 Example of an unhelpful preconception
|
||
To reduce unhelpful preconceptions, PMEE is an activating lecture in which students work in groups on problems in the fundamentals of electrical engineering. First, they are instructed to write down and discuss assumptions about the results of experiments. Then they execute the individual measurements to confirm or disprove the assumptions. In the third step, they reflect on the results and discuss their ideas, first in the group and then in plenary with the author of this paper. By explicitly recording the assumptions, they are more motivated to address the contradictions between the assumptions and the measurements. Working in a team also promotes interaction among students, and experience has
|
||
2693
|
||
|
||
shown that it leads to lively discussions when individual students have certain unhelpful preconceptions, or when there are several conflicting unhelpful preconceptions in a group. The plenary discussion promotes communication within the entire cohort and makes an important contribution to a positive error culture within the course. Unhelpful preconceptions and the subject-related mistakes resulting from them are seen as learning impulses (perturbations) and opportunities for further development.
|
||
8 TECHNICAL PROJECT
|
||
The technical project (TP) has the same target group as the PMEE, although the focus is on a larger problem. Students also work in groups in this course and, due to the nature of the problem, will sooner or later encounter gaps in their knowledge that they will have to fill largely on their own. The lecturer and tutors act as coaches and mainly provide methodological support. Examples of problems within the TP include home control, an alarm system, and a coffee machine.
|
||
Figure 3 Exemplary student results When implementing the results, the objective is to give students as many degrees of freedom as possible so that they can freely design the objects (see Fig. 3). A range of sensors and actuators are available to students for electrical implementation. The basic functions are always implemented using Arduino platform and can be extended using a Raspberry Pi platform. The sensors, actuators and Arduino/Raspberry Pi boards have to be purchased with a virtual cash. This means that not only the technical implementation but also the economic aspects are taken into account. In addition to the demonstrators, the students will document and present their results to other students and guests attending the final presentation. Throughout the four-day project (Tuesday-Friday or two weekends), students will use project management methods, allowing the course to be certified as project-based. In addition to the technical learning objectives, there is a strong emphasis on socializing among students, so that they get to know as many of their fellow students as possible and form study groups for the rest of the study.
|
||
9 ACTION ORIENTATION OF THE TWO COURSES
|
||
Based on the presentation of the two courses, the characteristics of action orientation are analyzed using the determinants. The results of this analysis are presented in Tab. 1 (++ very extensively available, + extensively available, 0 available, - selectively available, -- not available at all).
|
||
2694
|
||
|
||
Table 1 Action orientation of the courses
|
||
|
||
Determinants
|
||
D1: internal differentiation D2: learner's degree of freedom D3: transparency of the learning objectives and decisions D4: action structure D5: action product D6: system reference D7: interdisciplinarity D8: cooperative learning D9: layer of support and reflection D10: open assessment of learning outcomes
|
||
|
||
PMEE
|
||
+ 0 ++ + + 0 -++ ++ ++
|
||
|
||
TP
|
||
++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++
|
||
|
||
Due to the concept of both lectures, there is an internal differentiation (D1) in both courses, as the students can receive problem-related support from the lecturer (PMEE, TP) and the tutors (TP). Their questions and problems can be addressed explicitly, although the lecturer/student ratio (PMEE: approx. 90 students/1 lecturer; TP: approx. 100 students/1 lecturer + approx. 8 tutors) means that the support is more intensive in the TP. The learner’s degree of freedom (D2) is very high in the TP, as only the problem definition is given and the implementation options are left open. The activities within the project can also be determined to a greater extent by the students, as individual tasks are distributed within the group. In PMEE, the learner’s degree of freedom (D2) is more limited because students work on small problems. These problems define the approach, so students do not have many solution options. The learning objectives are presented within the courses and repeated at certain points, so that the learning objectives and the didactic decisions made in advance are very transparent (D3) in both courses. The individual phases of the action structure (D4) are present in both courses, although the planning and decision phases are less pronounced in PMEE. This is strongly related to the degrees of freedom students have in each course, as described above. In TP, there is a larger action product (D5) consisting of a demonstrator, electrical circuit, program code, and presentation. In contrast, PMEE provides smaller action products (D5) (assembled circuits, measurement logs). Closely related to the action product is the system reference (D6), which is strongly pronounced in TP. This is due to the fact that the individual groups design and implement whole systems (e.g. home control systems), which means that they have to think more globally. In the small action products of PMEE, the system reference (D6) is established by the lecturer with the help of application examples (e.g. series circuit → lighting system). However, the students' activities relate more to the individual components and circuits. A similar argument can be made for interdisciplinarity (D7), although this determinant is not present in PMEE. The focus is strongly on the fundamentals of electrical engineering. It is clear from the description of the courses that teamwork (D8) is seen as an important component and therefore the determinant is strong. This is also true for the layer of support and reflection (D9). Neither course is directly graded, so that only the achievement of a certain level of performance is certified. The assessment of performance takes into account the activities within the courses, the reflection documents (TP: documentation, PMEE: learning diary) and the final results, so that one can speak of an open assessment of learning outcomes (D10).
|
||
|
||
10 CONCLUSIONS
|
||
Based on the analysis of the courses, it can be concluded that TP has an action-oriented approach. This is also true for PMEE, although here the individual determinants and the action orientation are less pronounced. This means that action orientation is not only suitable for schools but also for universities. PMEE also shows that even lectures can be enriched with activating elements and thus developed towards action orientation.
|
||
There are a number of challenges to implementing action orientation at the university, but they can be overcome. The large cohorts make the implementation of internal differentiation (D1) and learner's degree of freedom (D2) difficult. Voluntary assessments of learning outcomes and additional out-ofclass offerings, as well as the associated shift of learning activities outside of class time, facilitate implementation. This also applies to the implementation of the action structure (D4), which does not have to be completed in its entirety in the 90-minute course. The possible cost and size of the real systems (D5) can be reduced by using simulations, videos and modern technologies such as VR and
|
||
|
||
2695
|
||
|
||
AR. Of course, both real and virtual action products are suitable for promoting system reference (D6) and integrating interdisciplinary aspects (D7). Due to the complexity of the action products, it is not only useful but also necessary for students to work in teams, thus promoting cooperative learning (D8). This also relieves the lecturer, who does not have to support 100 students, but "only" 20 groups. The optional performance assessment mentioned above can be used to provide feedback to students. In addition, individual assessments of learning outcomes can be planned during the course to focus on both outcomes (e.g. interim presentations) and learning processes (e.g. portfolios, group discussions). This leads to open assessment of learning outcomes (D10) and can be used as part of the support and reflection layer (D9). In addition to open communication, the content of the layer of reflection can also increase the transparency of the course (D3). The next step in the implementation of cDoEE will focus on strengthening the action orientation in PMEE, the use of new media and investigating the differences between the use of simulations and real circuits in the course. The focus will be on learning effectiveness and learner motivation.
|
||
REFERENCES
|
||
[1] A. Riegler, "Constructivism”, Paradigms in theory construction, New York, Springer New York, pp. 235-255, 2011.
|
||
[2] M. F. Peschl, “Cognitive modelling”, Dt Univ.-Verlag, Wiesbaden, Germany, 1990 [3] H. R. Meturana and F. J. Varela, “Autopoiesis and Cognition – The Realization of the Living”,
|
||
London, 1980 [4] E. von Glasersfeld, "The reluctance to change a way of thinking.", The Irish Journal of Psychology,
|
||
vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 83-90, 1988. [5] H. Maturana, J. Mpodozis and J. C. Letelier, "Brain, language and the origin of human mental
|
||
functions.", Biological Research, No. 28, pp. 15-26, 1995. [6] R. Kumar and V. K. Gupta, "An introduction to cognitive constructivism in education" Journal of
|
||
Indian Education vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 39-45, 2009. [7] A. J. Clark, "Reframing: A therapeutic technique in group counseling.", Journal for Specialists in
|
||
Group Work vol. 23, no.1, pp. 66-73, 1998. [8] T. Jambor, “Konstruktivistische Fachdidaktik der Elektrotechnik”, Postdoctoral Thesis, Munich,
|
||
Germany, Dr. Hut, 2022. [9] I. Stewart and V. Joines, “TA today: A new introduction to transactional analysis”, Nottingham,
|
||
England, Lifespace Publishing, 1987 [10] A. Renkl, H. Mandl and H. Gruber. "Inert knowledge: Analyses and remedies." Educational
|
||
Psychologist, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 115-121, 1996.
|
||
2696
|
||
|