How People Learn Research Articles

Developing Theoretical Framework for Evaluation of Engineering Education in Sub-Saharan African Countries

The rising challenges of engineering education facing Sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries are considered to be one of the main factors that have been crippling the development of the region, which is desperately needed to elevate its economy. This paper established the need for constructing a new theoretical framework for the purpose of evaluation of engineering education programs within the context of SSA countries. Therefore, combining both PST and constructivism theory, along with How People Learn (HPL) framework, Outcome-based Education (OBE) model, and Constructive Alignment (CA) model, an integrated theoretical framework capable of evaluating the situation of the SSA engineering education programs and identifying the appropriate conditions required for transformation of these programs has been developed.

Promoting Cognitive Engagement using Technology Enhanced Book-End Method in Online Active Learning Strategies

This study aims to investigate the effectiveness of active learning methodologies and technology tools in enhancing cognitive engagement among students in an online learning environment. Traditional teaching methods may not be sufficient to be replicated to engage students in online learning, which may lead to lower levels of cognitive engagement and reduced learning outcomes. Thus, it is essential to explore how technology tools and active learning strategy can be used to enhance cognitive engagement in online learning. This study involves the implementation of book-end method in active learning strategy and the adoption of technology tools such as Mentimeter, Padlet, Zoom or Microsoft Teams with breakout function and Canva in online classes. The theory of constructive alignment, how people learn (HPL) framework and scaffolding strategies are employed to ensure a seamless harmony between the provided activities and assessments. The students had to reflect their experience in this online learning classes and thematic analysis was conducted deductively using pre-determined themes based on cognitive engagement theory to analyse whether the students were cognitively engaged during the online lessons. The findings of this study indicate that book-end approach in active learning using higher order thinking skills activities and technology tools can significantly enhance cognitive engagement among students in online learning. The use of recaps infused with Mentimeter and breakout sessions powered by Zoom or MS Teams and Canva as the intermittent discussions tools, contribute to improved cognitive engagement. In conclusion, this study highlights the importance of using active learning methodologies and technology tools to enhance cognitive engagement in online learning. The findings suggest that educators should incorporate these tools and methodologies into their teaching practices to improve learning outcomes in online classes.

What people learn about how people learn: An analysis of citation behavior and the multidisciplinary flow of knowledge

We explore the contention that the seminal US National Academies consensus report, How People Learn (HPL), played a major role in bridging the flow of knowledge from Cognitive Science to Education. Our paper yielded four important results: First, HPL is, on a number of bibliometric measures, an unusually interdisciplinary work. Focusing on the fields of particular interest here, our citation analysis shows the Education, Cognitive Science, and Border field (e.g., Educational Psychology, Learning Sciences, and Learning Technology and Human-Computer Interaction) literatures all to have been major influences on it. Second, we found HPL to be unusually highly cited – and by publications from an unusually diverse set of disciplines. Beyond Education, Cognitive Science, and Border field publications, HPL was also relatively highly cited by publications in Medical/Health-related, Engineering, and other Discipline-Based Education Research fields. Third, undermining the claim that HPL served as a gateway to the Cognitive Science literature, we found Education articles citing HPL not to be more likely to have Cognitive Science as a major influence than are Education articles more generally, as indicated by their cited references. Finally, the Education publications that cited HPL were far more likely to refer to concepts in HPL that were already prevalent in the Education literature rather than to concepts from Cognitive Science. Conversely, the Cognitive Science publications that cited HPL were more apt to refer to concepts already in the Cognitive Science literature. Taken together, these results are a caution that, even for a highly regarded multidisciplinary work cited widely by publications from multiple disciplines, its direct influence could be largely disciplinary. Implications for the policy goals of fostering interdisciplinary research and the role of National Academies consensus reports are discussed.

Using the How People Learn Framework to Examine Mentoring Conversations between Special Educators and their Mentors in an Electronic Mentoring Site

This exploratory study examined the frequency and content of text-based interactions between special education mentors (n=22) and mentees (n=50) within an electronic mentoring site, the Electronic Mentoring for Student Success Program (eMSS). Mentors and mentees were matched based on grade level and disability category of students taught. The How People Learn (HPL) framework was used to qualitatively code conversations between novice teachers and their mentors. The HPL framework describes three essential competencies for teachers (1) knowledge of how students’ learn; (2) knowledge of teaching; and (3) knowledge of subject matter [1]. This learning occurs within learning centered, knowledge centered, assessment centered, and community centered environments and is the place where teacher expertise develops [1]. Support for all aspects of this framework were found. Mentors and menthes communicated frequently sharing ideas and resources. A total of 997 postings were made during the five-month pilot program. Mentors initiated the majority of the posts (n = 675) and mentees initiated less often (n = 322). Data support mentoring conversations supporting all four environments. Learning centered (n =909, 36%); knowledge centered (n= 818, 32%) assessment centered (n =587, 32%) and community centered (n=213, 8%). These data revealed that mentors provided specific support to beginning special educators with less than three years of teaching experience. Mentors provided support with lesson planning, behavior management, resources, compiling student data, interpreting student data, grading, and building content knowledge. Implications for future research and implications for practice will be discussed.

Validation of a Survey for Graduate Teaching Assistants: Translating Theory to Practice

AbstractBackgroundGraduate teaching assistants (GTAs) play important roles in undergraduate education. The improvement of GTAs' teaching skills relies on effective formative and summative feedback about their teaching. An absence of robust, theory‐driven feedback tools can limit the scope and the usefulness of feedback to GTAs.PurposeThis article focuses on the validation of a student survey that provides pedagogical feedback to GTAs. This survey's development was guided by the How People Learn (HPL) framework. Consisting of four dimensions (knowledge‐centeredness, learner‐centeredness, assessment‐centeredness, and community‐centeredness), this framework has been used to empirically assess GTA teaching and student learning, especially in engineering.MethodThe survey was validated using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with prior external content validity checks. We used EFA to identify distinct factors in the survey. The analyses informed item development on the final survey that operationalized the dimensions of the HPL framework.ResultsWe produced a 29‐item survey informed by the HPL framework. Three distinct factors were identified in the survey structure after two rounds of EFA. These factors represent an individual dimension or a hybrid of dimensions of the HPL framework.ConclusionThis article describes the development of a survey that is ready for use by engineering GTAs to solicit feedback from students. From survey results, GTAs may obtain HPL‐based teaching profiles that translate theory to practice. Implications for practice are also provided to facilitate the implementation of the survey, to improve the effectiveness of GTA teaching, and to enhance engineering student learning.

Order Matters: Using the 5E Model to Align Teaching with How People Learn

“I have to teach someone to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. How am I supposed to do that? What should I start with? How can this be so hard?” I have found that teaching anything to another person is rife with far more decisions and dilemmas than I could have ever imagined at first. Years ago, I had a college roommate who wanted to participate in a summer teaching program. For her interview, she had to develop a lesson plan to teach someone else how to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. Have you ever thought about teaching someone else how to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich? She had asked for my input, and once we started to really consider the possibilities, our minds reeled. How would you start? What would you do first? Next? After that? Who was the learner anyway? And had they made a sandwich before? Were they allergic to peanuts? How old were they? Should we let them have a knife? Should we show them how first? Talk them through it? Let them have a go at it on their own? Should we first teach them the names of all the tools and things we were going to use? Should we ask them why they needed to learn how to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich in the first place? What were the critical issues in teaching someone how to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich? Much like in the “PBJ Dilemma” as we came to call it, there are many decisions to be made in designing effective learning experiences in undergraduate biology classes—and instructors are making these decisions constantly. It can seem overwhelming, yet the research literatures from cognitive science, psychology, and science education about how people learn suggest guidelines about constructing effective learning experiences (National Research Council [NRC], 1999 ). Much like the PBJ Dilemma, the order in which we decide to do things with students when we teach is critical, yet the order of things happening in a class session often goes undiscussed and unexamined. At first glance, the most pressing teaching dilemmas in our biology classrooms—student motivation, student retention of information, student understanding of difficult concepts—may seem unrelated to the order in which things are happening; however, what we do first, second, third, and so on can have many ramifications. For many instructors who have primarily learned from and used a lecture-based teaching approach, considerations of order have been primarily about the order of ideas. With the increasing use of active-learning strategies, class sessions are moving from having a single component—a lecture—to having many components over the course of even 50 minutes (e.g., a video clip, a pair discussion on a biology-based problem, a clicker question, a mini-lecture, and a final index card reflection). So, what is the optimal order for sequencing these elements to maximize student learning of biology?

A Research Synthesis of the Effectiveness, Replicability, and Generality of the VaNTH Challenge‐based Instructional Modules in Bioengineering

BackgroundBetween 2000 and 2006 the Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Texas and Harvard/MIT Engineering Research Center (VaNTH/ERC) developed, tested, and implemented a set of educational innovations based largely on the ideas presented in the bookHow People Learn(HPL) and an instructional design known as the the STAR Legacy Cycle. The motivation for this study was to synthesize the results of this work. Published and unpublished experimental and quasi‐experimental assessments were included in this synthesis.Purpose(Hypothesis)The fundamental hypotheses tested were whether a set of modules involving challenge‐based instruction and other course innovations, often involving advanced computer‐based technologies, improved student performance in a variety of educational settings and student populations, and whether improvements could be achieved by instructors other than the developers of the innovations.Design/MethodMeta‐analysis of effects from thirty‐three separate modules in five courses in bioengineering domains was undertaken, along with three case studies.ResultsResults from the experimental (randomized) and stronger‐quasi experimental studies revealed a weighted effect size of 0.655 (p< 0.001). Studies using randomized designs produced smaller effects, and studies using measures of transfer and adaptive expertise to index outcomes produced larger effects. Analyses also revealed that the results can be replicated by instructors other than the developers of the modules, in a variety of student populations and educational settings, and at other institutions.ConclusionsOverall, the challenge‐based modules and other innovations have moderate overall effects on improved student performance. They can be implemented successively by other instructors in a variety of educational settings and student populations.

Online Course Design: A Case Study

This case study uses the How People Learn (HPL) framework as the conceptual model to examine an online course in a teacher licensure program for evidence of high level learning outcomes that involve collaboration, reflection, mentoring, and problem solving. The HPL framework focuses on the learning environment and indicates that effective learning takes place to the extent that the learning environment is learner-centered, knowledge-centered, assessment-centered, and community-centered. Analysis of the data resulted in themes that coincide with the elements of the HPL framework: professional growth, peer learning, teaching presence, and collaboration. The design of the course appeared to have a positive impact on student learning as far as complex problem solving and collaboration with peers. Results of the study demonstrate that the HPL framework provides a powerful structure for creating and assessing environments conducive to the work of prospective professionals..

The Role of Collaborative Reflection on Shaping Engineering Faculty Teaching Approaches

AbstractOver the last several years, engineering faculty and learning scientists from four universities worked in collaboration to develop educational materials to improve the quality of faculty teaching and student learning. Guided by the How People Learn (HPL) framework, engineering faculty worked in collaboration with learning scientists to develop learner‐centered, student‐focused instructional methods. In consultation with learning scientists, engineering faculty carried out educational inquiry in their classrooms aimed at investigating student learning and enhancing instruction. In this paper we discuss the extent to which faculty engaged in these collaborative endeavors and how their teaching approaches differed as a result of their level of engagement. Study findings reveal the role that collaborative reflection plays in shaping teaching approaches. Results from this study provide insights for researchers and other practitioners in engineering and higher education interested in implementing engineering faculty development programs to optimize the impact on teaching.

PRiME: Integrating professional responsibility into the engineering curriculum

Engineering educators have long discussed the need to teach professional responsibility and the social context of engineering without adding to overcrowded curricula. One difficulty we face is the lack of appropriate teaching materials that can fit into existing courses. The PRiME (Professional Responsibility Modules for Engineering) Project (http://www.engr.utexas.edu/ethics/primeModules.cfm) described in this paper was initiated at the University of Texas, Austin to provide web-based modules that could be integrated into any undergraduate engineering class. Using HPL (How People Learn) theory, PRiME developed and piloted four modules during the academic year 2004-2005. This article introduces the modules and the pilot, outlines the assessment process, analyzes the results, and describes how the modules are being revised in light of the initial assessment. In its first year of development and testing, PRiME made significant progress towards meeting its objectives. The PRiME Project can strengthen engineering education by providing faculty with an effective system for engaging students in learning about professional responsibility.

The Development of Adaptive Expertise in Biomedical Engineering Ethics

This paper is an investigation of the How People Learn (HPL) Legacy Cycle's ability to expand adaptive expertise across the developmental span of high school and college. Participants included high school and college students. Pre-test data indicated younger students (high school and first-year college students) were less knowledgeable about the science of stem cells than older students (second-, third-, and fourth year college students), and all students were low in adaptiveness. Post-test data showed that younger students achieved parity with the more advanced students in basic scientific knowledge. The younger students also became highly adaptive by the post-test, but the older students did not advance beyond their pre-curriculum levels. We hypothesize that the older students began the intervention with more preconceived notions about stem cells, and thus were less able to think and analyze flexibly within that framework.

Teaching for adaptive expertise in biomedical engineering ethics

This paper considers an approach to teaching ethics in bioengineering based on the How People Learn (HPL) framework. Curricula based on this framework have been effective in mathematics and science instruction from the kindergarten to the college levels. This framework is well suited to teaching bioengineering ethics because it helps learners develop "adaptive expertise". Adaptive expertise refers to the ability to use knowledge and experience in a domain to learn in unanticipated situations. It differs from routine expertise, which requires using knowledge appropriately to solve routine problems. Adaptive expertise is an important educational objective for bioengineers because the regulations and knowledge base in the discipline are likely to change significantly over the course of their careers. This study compares the performance of undergraduate bioengineering students who learned about ethics for stem cell research using the HPL method of instruction to the performance of students who learned following a standard lecture sequence. Both groups learned the factual material equally well, but the HPL group was more prepared to act adaptively when presented with a novel situation.

Assessing Adaptive Expertise in Undergraduate Biomechanics

AbstractThis paper describes the design, development, implementation, and assessment of a multimedia‐based learning module focused on biomechanics. The module is comprised of three challenges and is based on a model of learning and instruction known as the How People Learn (HPL) framework. Classroom assessment of the first challenge was undertaken to test the hypothesis that the HPL approach increases adaptive expertise in movement biomechanics. Student achievement was quantified using pre‐ and post‐test questionnaires designed to measure changes in three facets of adaptive expertise: factual and conceptual knowledge and transfer. The results showed that the HPL approach increased students' conceptual knowledge as well as their ability to transfer knowledge to new situations. These findings indicate that challenge‐based instruction, when combined with an intellectually engaging curriculum and principled instructional design, can accelerate the trajectory of novice to expert development in bioengineering education.