Salumari Madhu
1*,
G. Prabhakara Reddy
2
- Department of Mechanical Engineering, MLR Institute of Technology, An Autonomous Institution, Affiliated toJNTUH, Hyderabad, T.S., India
- Department of Computer Science and Engineering,MLR Institute of Technology, An Autonomous Institution, Affiliated to JNTUH, Hyderabad, T.S., India
Abstract
In the engineering education, the first year results of a student set the tone for the future and, indeed, whether a student decides to remain in the engineering program at all. Engineering programs around the country experience difficulty in assisting students with the transition from intermediate level to college level, and struggle with the delicate balance between supporting a student's transitional needs and maintaining academic rigor in a Competitive environment. The first year confronts students with a curriculum especially in core subjects that challenges their long held beliefs of "being good in math and science." Their first introduction to engineering education throws them into the realm of learning through experience and discovery. This at times can be overwhelming and challenging, on the way to achieving the goal of providing them with enough information to help them understand the breadth of the engineering profession. This paper elaborates upon three specific discussion points: Core subjects in which generally students score less at first year level, Methodologies and practices implemented to improve the scores in these subjects and the challenges faced in the implementation process.
References
- Farrell, Stephanie, et al. "A Virtual Community of Practice to Introduce Evidence-based Pedagogy 2.
- Bergmann, Jonathan, and Aaron Sams. Flipped learning: Gateway to student engagement. International Society for Technology in Education, 2014.
- http://oncourseworkshop.com/interdependence/thi nk-aloud-pair-problem-solving/
- MacGregor, J. (1990). "Collaborative learning: Shared inquiry as a process of reform" In Svinicki, M. D. (Ed.), The changing face of college teaching, New Directions for Teaching and Learning No. 42.
- Lochhead, J., and Whimbey, A. (1987). "Teaching analytical reasoning through thinking aloud pair problem solving" In Stice, J. E. (Eds.), Developing critical thinking and problem-solving abilities, New Directions for Teaching and Learning No. 30.
- Millis, B. J., and Cottell, P. G., Jr. (1998). Cooperative learning for higher education faculty, American Council on Education, Series on Higher Education. The Oryx Press, Phoenix, AZ.
- Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn& Bacon.
- R.M. Felder & R. Brent. (2003). �Learning by Doing.� Chem. Engr. Education, 37(4), 282�283. . The philosophy and strategies of active learning
- http://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/groupwriting/ 10. https://www.umass.edu/writingprogram/jy/collabo rative%20assignments.html
- http://www.ryerson.ca/content/dam/studentlearnin gsupport/resources/types-ofwriting/Efficient%20Group%20Writing.pdf
- Prince, Michael J., and Richard M. Felder. "Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions, comparisons, and research bases." Journal of engineering education 95.2 (2006): 123-138.
- Felder, Richard M., and Rebecca Brent. "Effective strategies for cooperative learning." Journal of Cooperation & Collaboration in College Teaching 10.2 (2001): 69-75.
- R.M. Felder and L.K. Silverman, "Learning and Teaching Styles in Engineering Education," Engr. Education, 78(7), 674-681 (1988). Presents the original learning style model and strategies for addressing a variety of learning styles.
