ICAP is a theory of active learning that differentiates students' engagement based on their behaviors. ICAP postulates that Interactive engagement, demonstrated by co-generative collaborative behaviors, is superior for learning to Constructive engagement, indicated by generative behaviors. Both kinds of engagement exceed the benefits of Active or Passive engagement, marked by manipulative and attentive behaviors, respectively. This paper discusses a 5-year project that attempted to translate ICAP into a theory of instruction using five successive measures: (a) teachers' understanding of ICAP after completing an online module, (b) their success at designing lesson plans using different ICAP modes, (c) fidelity of teachers' classroom implementation, (d) modes of students' enacted behaviors, and (e) students' learning outcomes. Although teachers had minimal success in designing Constructive and Interactive activities, students nevertheless learned significantly more in the context of Constructive than Active activities. We discuss reasons for teachers' overall difficulty in designing and eliciting Interactive engagement.

Background Similar to other domains, engineering education lacks a framework to classify active learning methods used in classrooms, which makes it difficult to evaluate when and why they are effective for learning.Purpose/Hypothesis This study evaluated the effectiveness and applicability of the Differentiated Overt Learning Activities (DOLA) framework, which classifies learning activities as interactive, constructive, or active, for engineering classes. We tested the ICAP hypothesis that student learning is more effective in interactive than constructive activities, which are more effective than active activities, which are more effective than passive activities.Design/Method We conducted two studies to determine how and to what degree differentiated activities affected student learning outcomes; we measured student knowledge and understanding of materials science and engineering concepts.Results Study 1 showed that students scored higher on all postclass quiz questions after participating in interactive and constructive activities than after the active activities. Student scores on more difficult, inference questions suggested that interactive activities provided significantly deeper learning than constructive or active activities. Study 2 showed that student learning, in terms of gain scores, increased systematically from passive to active to constructive to interactive, as predicted by the ICAP hypothesis. All the increases, from condition to condition, were significant.Conclusions Our analyses of classroom activities in the engineering domain showed that they fit within the taxonomy of the DOLA framework. The results of the two studies provided evidence to support the predictions of the ICAP hypothesis.

Background Collaboration is an ABET accreditation required component of the engineering curriculum. Research has shown that collaborative learning positively influences student achievement. The relationship between motivation, collaborative learning strategies, and achievement is not well studied in an engineering education context. Purpose(Hypothesis) A set of hypotheses were tested that predicted positive relationships between students' self‐reported informal collaboration, self‐efficacy for learning course material, knowledge building behaviors, and course grade. A second set of hypotheses were tested that predicted gender similarities in reported self‐efficacy, and gender differences in reported collaborative learning activities. Design/Method One hundred fifty engineering students were surveyed for study 1 and 513 students were surveyed for study 2. Bivariate correlations were completed to examine relationship between study variables; multiple regression analysis was completed to examine predictive ability of variables on course grade; MANOVA was completed to examine multivariate relationship between variables. Results In study 1, students' reported use of collaborative learning strategies and reported self‐efficacy for learning course material were significantly predictive of their course grade. In study 2, female students reported greater use of collaboration as a learning strategy than their male classmates; among male and female students combined, those who received “B's” in their engineering course reported more collaboration than their peers who received “A's” or “C's” and lower. Conclusion Overall, students' self reported collaborative learning strategies were associated with increased self‐efficacy for learning course material and course grade, particularly for students who received “B's” in the course. Female students reported greater use of collaborative learning strategies than their male peers.

In massive open online courses (MOOCs), low barriers to registration attract large numbers of students with diverse interests and backgrounds, and student use of course content is asynchronous and unconstrained. The authors argue that MOOC data are not only plentiful and different in kind but require reconceptualization-new educational variables or different interpretations of existing variables. The authors illustrate this by demonstrating the inadequacy or insufficiency of conventional interpretations of four variables for quantitative analysis and reporting: enrollment, participation, curriculum, and achievement. Drawing from 230 million clicks from 154,763 registrants for a prototypical MOOC offering in 2012, the authors present new approaches to describing and understanding user behavior in this emerging educational context.

The purpose of this study was to provide evidence for the internal structure of the domain-general and context-specific components of future time perspective (FTP) and to provide support for a top-down structure of FTP theory. The participants included 546 engineering students from a large university in the southwest of the USA. The students responded to the Future Time Perspective Scale, the Perceptions of Instrumentality Scale, and the Student Perceptions of Classroom Knowledgebuilding Scale. Analyses present evidence for: (a) the structural fidelity of student responses to the respective theoretical constructs, and (b) the top down, domaingeneral to context-sensitive relation between FTP variables and student learning behavior. The results also indicate that students' use of knowledge building strategies may be influenced by both domain-general aspects of FTP and the perceived endogenous instrumentality of coursework. Implications include support for use of valid FTP measures and the recognition of the relation between FTP and value of present school activities.

Background Students' beliefs about their intellectual ability influence their use of learning strategies, learning effort, and response to failure or setbacks. Students with incremental views of intelligence believe that learning is possible with sufficient effort, whereas those with entity views believe that intelligence is a fixed quality and expenditure of effort reflects an insufficient amount of that quality. Purpose This study examined the relationship between engineering students' beliefs about intelligence and their perceived use of active learning strategies such as collaboration and knowledge‐building behaviors, self‐efficacy for learning and performance, and course grade. The study also examined the extent of entity and incremental beliefs in a sample of engineering students. Design/Method The correlational study analyzed data from 377 engineering students recruited from required engineering courses at a large public university. We used bivariate correlations to examine relationships between study variables and multiple regression analyses to examine predictive ability of the variables on learning strategies and course grade. Results Our results showed that students' intelligence beliefs were correlated with active learning strategies. Self‐efficacy, reported use of collaboration, and incremental beliefs about intelligence were predictive of students' reported use of knowledge‐building behaviors. Intelligence beliefs were not predictive of course grade. Conclusions Our results demonstrate the utility of these motivational beliefs for understanding university engineering students' learning efforts. Our results also suggest a need for instructors to support incremental views of intelligence among engineering students.

Data analysis provided some evidence for reliable interpretation of scores indicating self-efficacy beliefs of nursing students. Comparison of scores from students in different semesters provided validity evidence; the instrument could be used to discriminate between beginning students and more advanced students possessing different levels of self-efficacy. When used for scale development, item response theory procedures can be more informative about item and test reliability than classical true score theory.

No abstract