Evaluating students' perceptions of active learning pedagogies. Helen Kay (Learning Enhancement and Academic Development), Tim Parker (Department of Engineering and Maths) Active Learning Conference 11–12 September 2017

Introduction to evaluating students' perceptions of active learning pedagogies. In this presentation we are going to consider the implementation and evaluation of 'Scale-up' including: Why 'Scale-up' was deployed; and how we evaluated it; What the students said about 'Scale-up'; Students perceptions of active learning; Was there any correlation with performance.

Why Scale-up for Engineering Undergraduates? Didactic teaching doesn't promote the development of problem-solving skills; Students may lack key employability skills; Scale-up allows the inclusion of hands-on activities, problem-based scenarios and independent research in teaching and learning sessions.

How we set about implementing & evaluating Scale-up A collaboration between the Department of Engineering and Maths and LEAD This involved and continues to involve: a faculty teaching enhancement grant; pedagogic support on implementation; support the team's skills and confidence in PedRes; literature review; the creation & deployment of a questionnaire based on previous research (240 level 4 and 5 students); analysis of quantitative and qualitative data.....

What student said! Students asked to use three (3) words or phrases to describe their reaction to the active learning in the scale-up classes.

Students' 'value and positivity' (green) towards active learning and their 'participation' (orange) (Mean Scores)

Students' 'participation' in active learning (Mean Scores)

Students' 'participation' in active learning (Mean Scores) - negatively worded questions reversed

Students' 'value and positivity' towards active learning (Mean Scores)

Students' experience of tutors' 'active learning' teaching/facilitation strategies (Mean Scores)

Students' assessment performance The correlations between the overall assessment mark and the factors identified are weak and only contribute a small amount of the total variance......

Summary Overall SCALE-UP generally well received but Need for further study: Staff involvement and academic dimension. Opportunity for longitudinal study Impact of level 4 experience on future study. Need for further work: Training and development of staff to support SCALE-UP activity: Constructive alignment of delivery and assessment Recognition of issues with delivery and preparation of material. Cost benefit analysis for future use of SCALE-UP.

Any Questions Contacts Helen Kay (LEAD): helen.kay@shu.ac.uk Tim Parker (ACES): acestp3@exchange.shu.ac.uk

Module Learning Outcomes Level 4 Aerospace Materials and Manufacturing 1. To develop and apply an understanding of engineering materials in respect to material structure and how manufacture processes can change the structure and properties of materials. 2. To develop and apply an understanding of the processing routes appropriate to specific materials and have the ability to make an informed choice of manufacturing processes with respect to capabilities and the cost build-up of those processes. 3 To apply knowledge of materials and manufacturing appropriately to applications relevant to the aerospace industry in accordance with industry standards and regulations

Module Learning Outcomes Level 5 Professional Practice 1. Develop higher levels of professional and ethical conduct with respect to engineering organisations and the general public domestically and internationally. 2. Promote better understanding of role of engineers in business and sustainable development. 3. Develop comprehension of the role that engineering plays at strategic and operational level in support of an organisation. 4. To identify, develop and reflect on your personal, professional skills, future employability and career planning.

References (1) Prince, M. (2004). Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the Research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93, 223-231. White, P., Larson, I., Styles, K., Yuriev, E., Evans, D., Short, J., Rangachari, P., Malone, D., Davie, B., Naidu, S., & Eise, N. (2015). Using active learning strategies to shift student attitudes and behaviours about learning and teaching in a research intensive educational context. Pharmacy Education, 15. Retrieved from http://pharmacyeducation.fip.org/pharmacyeducation/article/view/373 Prince, M., Borrego, M., Henderson, C., Cutler, S., & Froyd, J. (2014). Use of Research-Based Instructional Strategies in Core Chemical Engineering Courses. Chemical Engineering Education. Finelli, C. J., Daly, S. R., & Richardson, K. M. (2014). Bridging the research-to-practice gap: designing an institutional change plan using local evidence. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(2), 331-361. DOI: 10.1002/jee.20042

References (2) Borrego, M., Froyd, J. E. and Hall, T. S. (2010). Diffusion of Engineering Education Innovations: A Survey of Awareness and Adoption Rates in U.S. Engineering Departments. Journal of Engineering Education, 99: 185–207. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2010.tb01056.x Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M.K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. PNAS 111: 8410- 8415. Nguyen, K. A., et al. (2016). Students’ expectations, types of instruction, and instructor strategies predicting student response to active learning. International Journal of Engineering Education, 33 (1). Entwistle, N., McCune, V., & Tait, H. (2013). Approaches and study skills inventory for students (ASSIST) (incorporating the Revised Approaches to Studying Inventory - RASI): Report of the development and use of the inventories.