To Teach is to Learn: Student and Instructor Perspectives on Assignment Development as a Springboard to Deep Learning

To Teach is to Learn: Student and Instructor Perspectives on Assignment Development as a Springboard to Deep Learning

M. Jamieson, L. Goettler, A. Liu, J. Shaw (2017).  To Teach is to Learn: Student and Instructor Perspectives on Assignment Development as a Springboard to Deep Learning. 13.

Of the three levels of learning – surface, strategic, and deep (Bain, 2004) – the traditional lecture style combined with large class sizes often found in engineering and science programs tends to encourage surface learning. Students may not progress to, or past strategic learning since motivation to understand a concept beyond attaining the desired grade can be limited in lecture format courses. The Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board (CEAB) Graduate Attribute performance criteria for engineering programs go beyond memorization and the ability to demonstrate comprehension. The graduate attributes require deep learning with the demonstration of synthesis and evaluation of concepts. Graduates should be able to create and evaluate innovative solutions for a sustainable world. During an eight-month co-op work term, two of the authors were employed to develop instructional materials for an introductory chemical engineering design course. Our goals were to develop design lab assignments to support deep learning; target Bloom’s higher level cognitive and affective domain skills; support contextual knowledge experience, and achieve progress in all areas of the CEAB graduate attributes. Through this work experience, the co-op students gained a deeper level of understanding of the materials than achieved after completion of the course for credit in the previous term. This paper explores their experience; the instructor experience; the structure of their work; and the method of assignment design, development, and testing. Engineering instructors can encourage and abet deep learning of materials in their courses by incorporating opportunities for peer-to-peer teaching, peer editing interactions, and relevant assignment development experiences. Illustrative design course examples are presented and discussed.

Bain, K. (2004). What the best college teachers do. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Proceedings of the 13th International CDIO Conference in Calgary, Canada, June 18-22 2017

Authors (New): 
Marnie V. Jamieson
Leah Goettler
Albert Liu
John M. Shaw
University of Alberta, Canada
Peer Teaching
Deep Learning
Integrated Learning
Active learning
collaborative learning
faculty development
Action Research
CDIO Standard 1
CDIO Standard 2
CDIO Standard 3
CDIO Standard 5
CDIO Standard 7
CDIO Standard 8
CDIO Standard 9
CDIO Standard 10
CDIO Standard 11
Armstrong, P. (2016). "Bloom's Taxonomy." Vanderbilt University, Center for Teaching. Bloom's Taxonomy. : 
Bain, K. (2004). What the best college teachers do. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.: 
Bain, K. (2012). What the best college students do. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap of Harvard University Press.: 
Bloom, B., Englehart, M., Furst, E., Hill, W., & Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, the Classification of Educational Goals, Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. In Anderson. L.W., Sosniak, L.A, (Eds.), (1994). Bloom’s Taxonomy: A Forty Year Retrospective. The National Society For the Study of Education: Chicago, 200 pp: 
ISBN: 978-0077-5762
Biggs, J.B. (1999). “What the Student Does: teaching for enhanced learning”. Higher Education Research and Development, 18(1), 57-75. : 
Biggs, J. B. (2003). Teaching for Quality Learning at University: What the Student Does. Buckingham; Philadelphia, PA: Society for Research into Higher Education : Open University Press.: 
Biggs, J. B., Tang, C. S., & Society for Research into Higher Education (2011). Teaching for Quality Learning at University: What the Student Does. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Education.: 
Campbell, L., and B. Campbell. (2009). "Beginning With What Students Know - The Role of Prior Knowledge in Learning." In Mindful Learning 101: Proven Strategies for Student and Teacher Success, 7-21. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.: 
Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning with additional material from the Committee on Learning Research and Educational Practice. (2000). Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; National Research Council, How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School: Expanded Edition, National Academy Press.: 
Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge, and action research. London, UK: Routledge. : 
Case, J.M., and Light, G. (2011) “Emerging methodologies in engineering education research,” Journal of Engineering Education 100 (1) pp.186-210. : 
Cousin, G., (2009) Researching learning in higher education: An introduction to contemporary methods and approaches. p.150, New York, NY: Routledge.: 
Greeno, J., Collins, A., & Resnick, L. (1996). Cognition and Learning. In R. Calfee & D. Berliner (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 15–46). New York, NY: MacMillan.: 
Hattie, J. (2009). The Black Box of Tertiary assessment: an impending revolution. In L. H. Meyer, S. Davidson, H. Anderson, R. Fletcher, P.M. Johnston, & M. Rees (Eds.), Tertiary Assessment & Higher Education Student Outcomes: Policy, Practice & Research (pp.259-275). Wellington, New Zealand: Ako Aotearoa : 
Heller, P., Keith, R., and Anderson, S. (1992). “Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 1: Group versus individual problem solving,” Am. J. Phys. 60, pp. 627–636.: 
Heller, P., and Hollabaugh, M. (1992). “Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 2: Designing problems and structuring groups,” Am. J. Phys. 60, pp. 637-644.: 
Jamieson, M.V. (2016). “Application of Blended and Active Learning to Chemical Engineering Design Instruction”, University of Alberta : 
Johri, A., & Olds, B. M. (2011). “Situated engineering learning: Bridging engineering education research and the learning sciences”. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(1), 151–185.: 
Kember, D. (2000). Action learning and action research: Improving the quality of teaching and learning. London, UK: Routledge. : 
Kemmis, S., and McTaggart, R. (1988). The action research planner (3rd ed.). Geelong, Victoria, Australia: Deakin University Press. : 
Kristensen, P., Bjerkedal, T. (2007). Explaining the Relation Between Birth Order and Intelligence. Science (22 Jun 2007): Vol. 316, Issue 5832, pp. 1717: 
Metcalfe, J., & Finn, B. (2008). “Evidence that judgments of learning are causally related to study choice”. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 174–179. : 
Nestojko, J.F., Bui, D.C., Kornell, N. et al. (2014). “Expecting to teach enhances learning and organization of knowledge in free recall of text passages”. Memory & Cognition (2014) 42: 1038. : 
Resnick, L., & Klopfer, L. (Eds.). (1989). Toward the Thinking Curriculum: Current Cognitive Research. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. : 
Go to top