Current progressive teaching movements draw forth strong skepticism as they often seem antithetical to engineering classes. Why would anyone want to switch from the lecture method of teaching engineering to methods that employ active learning? Doesn't lecturing produce the most informed engineers? Isn't lecturing the best way to challenge students? To uphold the highest standards? Many hold the view that active learning methods may be appropriate for "soft" disciplines, but are inappropriate for engineering and the sciences. Others argue that students won't take the course work seriously and that coverage of material would have to be sacrificed. The presenters will question the validity of these objections by defining learning goals, such as depth of learning, engagement, and retention, that should be considered during selection of teaching methods. It will be shown that teaching writing-to-learn and cooperative learning achieve these goals and result in extraordinary transformation of both teacher and students. Student engagement and excitement are elevated at the same time as the depth of learning increases. Students become better engineers because they can think critically, solve problems individually or in teams, write better, and orally present information. Teachers find themselves challenging students with an even more demanding curriculum. Examples from a software engineering course will illustrate how these methods can challenge students more, create higher standards for learning, and produce better engineers than a typical lecture approach to teaching.
展开▼
