After So Much Effort: Is Faculty Using Cooperative Learning in the Classroom?

Abstract

Cooperative learning (CL) has been lauded over the years as one of the most successful teaching/learning strategies employed by professors of science, mathematics, engineering and technology (SMET) in institutions of higher education throughout Puerto Rico. The goal of the research project presented here was to examine the effectiveness of CL as perceived by SMET faculty who use it in the classroom at member institutions of the Puerto Rico Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation (PR‐LSAMP). As a long‐term goal, PR‐LSAMP researchers desired to use the findings to understand and address the training needs of their SMET faculty. Data was gathered on faculty members' use of CL and their perceptions of the effect of CL strategies on student performance and attitudes. Principal survey results showed that over 60% of faculty felt confident in their knowledge of CL theory and role assignment, although somewhat less confident in conflict resolution, grading activities and individual accountability. Fifty percent (50%) reported using the strategy very often or often (primarily for the exploration and learning of new concepts, in team projects and presentations, and in quizzes). Forty‐one percent (41%) described their experience in implementing CL as excellent or very good. In addition, faculty perceived more positive than negative changes in student performance and attitudes. Based on study results, researchers concluded that the success of cooperative learning in PR‐LSAMP institutions signals the beginning of a paradigm shift in the islands' educational system. In addition, results of the study were subsequently used to develop a cadre of SMET faculty to train their peers in various areas of cooperative learning.

Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Research Methods in Engineering Education

“…As might be expected, engineering education studies exhibited a strong preference for assigning priority to quantitative data and analysis. For example, it was quite common to develop an extensive control group or pre-test/post-test quantitative design to assess learning and augment it with one or a few open-ended questions to students about their attitude toward the intervention (Campbell et al, 2002;Lee, Castella, and Middleton, 1997;Morell et al, 2001;Raju and Sankar, 1999;Weisner and Lan, 2004). The extent to which authors presented the qualitative results ranges from referencing another publication (Brown, Morning, and Creswell and Plano Clark (2007).…”

“…Uses abbreviations and notation from Morse (2003). Watkins, 2005) to nearly a full page (Morell et al, 2001;Raju and Sankar, 1999). Most included one or two paragraphs discussing student attitudes and intervention logistics (Campbell et al, 2002;Lee et al, 1997;Weisner and Lan, 2004).…”

Prioritizing Teamwork: Promoting Process And Product Effectiveness In The Freshman Engineering Design Course

“…In fact, teaming has received greater emphasis in the engineering education literature recently. 1 Engineering teaming research, in general, encompasses the following areas: (a) cooperative learning, [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] (b) specific examples of using teams in the classroom, [11][12][13][14][15] (c) the impact of gender (and other demographic variables) on team productivity, [16][17][18] (d) essential team skills, [19][20][21][22][23] and (e) approaches for assessing teamwork (i.e., grading or evaluating team projects). [24][25][26][27][28][29] Although this literature is a valuable resource for instructors of teamwork, it fails to address team pedagogy.…”

(Tentative) Citizen Engineers: How We Engage State And Federal Governments On Behalf Of Engineering Education And Research

“…As the director of the Curriculum Innovation Center for this effort, I created and managed a program to have SMET faculty around the island learn how to teach, focusing on the learner not the teacher. Among other activities, many faculty incorporated the use of cooperative learning in their classrooms with significant success [2] In The facility, now known as the UPRM Model Factory, aims at providing students with an exemplary manufacturing experience in terms of quality, delivery, continuous improvement, and productivity. Students begin their experience by attending a Printed Circuit Assembly course, which recruits students in their third or fourth year (UPRM has five-year engineering programs).…”