A. Deepika
*,
Rohit Kandakatla
,
A. Saida
,
Vijaya Bhasker Reddy
- Department of Electronics and Communication Engineering, KG Reddy College of Engineering, Center for Engineering Education Research, KLE Technological University, India
Abstract
Higher education institutions around the world have encountered unprecedented times in the year 2020 due to the impact of the COVID19 pandemic. All academic institutions were forced to an online mode of learning due to the sudden lockdown imposed across different countries to curb the growth of the pandemic. Faculty who were teaching courses had to radically change their pedagogy and adopt technology tools that could support virtual synchronous learning. In this paper, we explore one such effort where faculty at a private undergraduate engineering institution reimagined how they could apply and teach innovative teaching methodologies through technology tools. Faculty teaching engineering courses have to often utilize active and collaborative pedagogical techniques to help students achieve higher level cognitive outcomes and we describe how the same techniques could be implemented through online mode of teaching.All the faculty prior to the start of the semester has undergone a 3-week faculty development program on technology-enhanced learning. During the program, the faculties were encouraged to identify technology tools that can be used to implement pedagogic techniques that are aligned to the Interactive Constructive Active and Passive (ICAP) framework. We describe in the paper the process followed by the faculty to align technology tools with the various pedagogies identified for the courses. We provide a list of various pedagogies by mapping them to the ICAP framework and discuss how the technology tools were used to implement them. The discussion in this paper will provide engineering educators with much needed insights on how to implement innovative pedagogies through technology tools. The results can be used by faculty as they transition to a blended mode of learning post COVID19.
References
- Bosch, K.A. &Cardinale, L. (1993). Preservice teacher� perceptions of computer use during a field experience. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 10(1), pp. 23-27.
- Diaz, D. P. &Bontenbal, K. F. (2000). Pedagogy-based technology training. In P. Hoffman & D. Lemke (eds.), Teaching and Learning in a Network World, pp. 50-54. Amsterdam, Netherlands: 105 Press.
- Fletcher, G. (1996). Former director of the Division of Educational Technology, Texas Education Agency, Executive Vice President of T.H.E. Institute quoted in T.H.E. Journal, 24(4), p. 87.
- Eby, J. (1997). Reflective planning, teaching and evaluation, K-12. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall
- Gess-Newsome, J., Blocher, M., Clark, J., Menasco, J., & Willis, E. (2003). Technology infused professional development: A framework for development and analysis. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 3(3), pp. 324-340.
- Bruner, J. S. (1966) Toward a Theory of Instruction, Cambridge, Mass.: Belkapp Press. 176 + x pages.
- Chi, M. T. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), 73�105. doi:10.1111/J.1756- 8765.2008.01005.X
- Chi, M. T., Roy, M., &Hausmann, R. G. (2008). Observing tutorial dialogues collaboratively: Insights about human tutoring effectiveness from vicarious learning. Cognitive Science, 32(2), 301�341.
- Chi, M. T., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219�243. doi:10.1080/0046152 0.2014.965823.
- Bloom, A. (1987). The closing of the American mind: How higher education has failed democracy and impoverished the souls of today's students. New York: Simon and Schuster.
- Bromley, H. (1998). Introduction: Data-driven democracy? Social assessment of educational computing. In H. Bromley & M. Apple (Eds.), Education, technology, power (pp. 1-28). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
- Bruce, B. C. (1993). Innovation and social change. In B. C. Bruce, J. K. Peyton, & T. Batson (Eds.), Network-based classrooms (pp. 9-32). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
- Bruce, B. C. (1997). Literacy technologies: What stance should we take? Journal of Literacy Research, 29(2), 289- 309.
- Bruce, B. C., & Hogan, M. C. (1998). The disappearance of technology: Toward an ecological model of literacy. In D. Reinking, M. McKenna, L. Labbo, and R. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world (pp. 269-281). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
