A systematic literature review of classroom observation protocols and their adequacy for engineering education in active learning environments

Uncovering Core Dimensions of K-12 Integrated STEM

“…This debate about definitions of integrated STEM instruction has hampered the development of protocols to observe and measure integrated STEM classroom practices. Guimarães and da Silva Lima (2021) conducted a systematic review of classroom observation protocols relevant to engineering education in active learning environments. This review uncovered 68 classroom protocols with four primary foci: (a) analysis of the emotional and instructional environment, (b) classroom management, (c) assessment of teaching and learning, and (d) observation of teacher and student behaviors.…”

“…For example, the Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP; Sawada et al, 2002) and the Classroom Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM (COPUS; Smith et al, 2013) were all designed to evaluate the teaching of either science or mathematics content. Few protocols have attended specifically to engineering content (Guimarães & da Silva Lima, 2021); these protocols include the Science and Engineering Classroom Learning Observation Protocol (Dringenberg et al, 2012), the Classroom Observation Protocol for Engineering Design (COPED) (Wheeler et al, 2019), a modified RTOP (Love et al, 2017), and the Engineering Design-based Science Teaching Observation Protocol (EDSTOP) (Capobianco et al, 2018). While they target different grade levels, for example the EDSTOP was designed for use in elementary classrooms and the COPED was designed for use in secondary (grades 7-12) classrooms, these engineering protocols measure the same components of engineering design advocated within K-12 policies (e.g., NGSS Lead States, 2013;NRC, 2012).…”

Desarrollo de competencias digitales a través del aprendizaje activo en contextos universitarios con ambientes m-learning

“…Así mismo se realizaron SLR enfocado a m-learning en educación superior en Arabia Saudita (Abdulrahman & Benkhelifa, 2018) En cuanto a aprendizaje activo, desde el 2017, hay algunas revisiones sistemáticas, en relación directa con Aprendizaje orientado a proyectos, su efectividad y gamificación (Júnior et al, 2019;Miyashita et al, 2018;Rahmawati et al, 2020;Yunita et al, 2021) y otras en general al aprendizaje activo y sus diferentes formas de implementar. (Guimarães & Lima, 2021;K. A. Nguyen et al, 2021;Nixon et al, 2021) En cuanto a competencias digitales en relación a los estudiantes, desde el 2017 hasta la actualidad se han encontrado algunos SLR, unos están enfocadas en los instrumentos de evaluación de la competencia digital (Saltos-Rivas et al, 2021;Sillat et al, 2021), otras se orientan puntualmente a las competencias digitales de estudiantes en educación superior (Sánchez-Caballé et al, 2020;Zhao et al, 2021), solamente una en relación a un marco de competencia digital: Digcomp (Bilbao-Aiastui et al, 2021) y otras a la relación de las competencias digitales con las competencias del siglo XXI (Van Laar et al, 2020).…”