Abstract: Anyone who has done any teaching will observe how much more deeply they come to understand the subject material as a result. Any uncertainty or lack of clarity is quickly exposed when it comes to explaining a concept to somebody else. This principle is exploited in contribution based pedagogies, where students become co-creators of learning resources which are shared with others. As well as deepening knowledge of subject material, contribution-based pedagogies develop interpersonal and professional skills. Students are required to work cooperatively in a co-dependent environment: the success of their learning depends not only on their own efforts, but on the work of their peers. In this paper, we discuss the educational theory and practice of contribution based pedagogy, and report on our own experiences.

Abstract- This paper presents the results of a study comparing student learning in a challenge-based and a traditional course in biotransport. Collaborating learning scientists and biomedical engineers designed a challengebased method of instruction that followed learning principles presented in the U.S. National Research Council report “How People Learn. ” In this study, the intervention group was taught a core biomedical engineering course in biotransport using this method. The control group was taught by traditional didactic lecture methods. The study compared the two methods’ effects on the early development of adaptive expertise (AE). AE requires a combination of two types of engineering skills: the ability to use subject knowledge appropriately and efficiently (efficiency) and the ability to think innovatively in new contexts (innovation). Therefore, student learning in biotransport was measured on both efficiency innovation on a pre- and a posttest. Students in the challenge-based instruction (CBI) and traditional groups ’ test scores were compared. Results show that CBI students made greater gains in both efficiency and innovation. We discuss these results in terms of their implications for improving undergraduate engineering education. Index Terms- adaptive expertise, how people learn, biotransport instruction, challenge-based learning, teaching methods, student learning measurements

In recent years prominent higher education leaders have called for a strengthening of the links between research and teaching and the incorporation of research and inquiry into the undergraduate curriculum (e.g., Boyer Commission 1999; Brew 2003; Healey and Jenkins 2009; Rowland 2006). From some perspectives, “undergraduate research ” and “inquiry ” are not centrally explicit elements of undergraduate education in New Zealand. However from other perspectives, one can argue that there is strong and growing interest in incorporating undergraduate research and inquiry into the mainstream of undergraduate education in New Zealand for all or at least for many students—and that these developments are relevant to the U.S. undergraduate research movement. But what do we mean by undergraduate research and inquiry? The Council for Undergraduate Research (www.cur.org) initially

Abstract not found

Changes within our approach to teaching can make some students feel uncomfortable. To overcome this, inquiry based learning, which is strongly supported by research in the areas of intellectual development and approaches to learning (Prince, 2007), can be used. Inquiry based approaches should be introduced in combination with existing teaching styles in order to address the needs of all students. Pair programming enhances the communication among peers and encourages students to ask questions of each other and be more ambitious in their computer programming practicals. The students subsequently gain confidence from one another to try different approaches to solving programming problems; this enhances deeper learning. Additionally, working in pairs provides some students with the courage to ask questions of the teacher while with their pair, which they may not do alone. This paper presents a case study on using pair programming to encourage inquiry based learning within programming modules, to improve attendance and practical assessment results.

What can I do about low teaching evaluations from students I teach actively when what they clearly want is much more traditional (passive ride, smooth highway please)? I’m about ready to give up and return to just lecturing, as I am sure students will evaluate my courses higher if I do. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Engineering education is in a turbulent period. Chronic industry complaints about skill deficiencies in engineering graduates, high attrition rates of engineering students with good academic performance records, the worldwide adoption of outcomes-based engineering program accreditation, and findings from both cognitive science and thousands of educational research studies showing serious deficiencies in traditional teaching methods have all provoked calls for changes in how engineering curricula are structured, delivered, and assessed. As might be expected, many academic staff members and administrators are less than enthusiastic about the proposed changes, arguing that the traditional system functions well and needs no radical revision. The ongoing debate involves four focal issues: how engineering curricula should be structured, how engineering courses should be taught and assessed, who should teach, and how the teachers should be prepared. This paper outlines two conflicting educational paradigms and the position on each of these four issues that each one reflects—the traditional paradigm, which has dominated engineering education since its inception, and the emerging alternative—and offers predictions about the eventual resolution. 1.