Pedagogies of Engagement

:
Classroom-Based Practices
KARL A. SMITH Prior to Edgerton’s paper, the widely distributed and influential
Department of Civil Engineering publication called The Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate
University of Minnesota Education [2] stressed pedagogies of engagement in concept. Three
of the principles speak directly to pedagogies of engagement,
SHERI D. SHEPPARD namely, that good practice encourages student-faculty contact, co-
Department of Mechanical Engineering operation among students, and active learning.
Stanford University More recently, the project titled The National Survey of Stu-
dent Engagement (NSSE) [3] deepens our understanding of how
DAVID W. JOHNSON students perceive classroom-based learning, in all its forms, as an el-
Department of Educational Psychology ement in the bigger issue of student engagement in their college ed-
ucation. The NSSE project conceives that student engagement is
ROGER T. JOHNSON not just a single course in a student’s academic career, but rather a
Department of Curriculum and Instruction pattern of his or her involvement in a variety of activities. As such,
University of Minnesota NSSE findings are a valuable assessment tool for colleges and uni-
versities to track how successful their academic practices are in en-
gaging their student bodies. The NSSE project is grounded in the
ABSTRACT proposition that student engagement, the frequency with which
students participate in activities that represent effective educational
Educators, researchers, and policy makers have advocated student practice, is a meaningful proxy for collegiate quality and, therefore,
involvement for some time as an essential aspect of meaningful by extension, quality of education. For example, the annual survey
learning. In the past twenty years engineering educators have of freshmen and seniors asks students how often they have partici-
implemented several means of better engaging their undergraduate pated in, for example, projects that required integrating ideas or in-
students, including active and cooperative learning, learning formation from various sources, used e-mail to communicate with
communities, service learning, cooperative education, inquiry and an instructor, asked questions in class or contributed to class discus-
problem-based learning, and team projects. This paper focuses on sions, received prompt feedback from faculty on their academic
classroom-based pedagogies of engagement, particularly performance, participated in community-based projects, or tutored
cooperative and problem-based learning. It includes a brief or taught other students. Student responses are organized around
history, theoretical roots, research support, summary of practices, five benchmarks:
and suggestions for redesigning engineering classes and programs 1. Level of academic challenge: Schools encourage achievement
to include more student engagement. The paper also lays out the by setting high expectations and emphasizing importance of
research ahead for advancing pedagogies aimed at more fully student effort.
enhancing students’ involvement in their learning. 2. Active and collaborative learning: Students learn more when
intensely involved in educational process and are encouraged
Keywords: cooperative learning, problem-based learning, student to apply their knowledge in many situations.
engagement 3. Student-faculty interaction: Students able to learn from ex-
perts and faculty serve as role models and mentors.
4. Enriching educational experiences: Learning opportunities
I. INTRODUCTION TO THE PEDAGOGIES inside and outside classroom (diversity, technology, collabo-
OF ENGAGEMENT ration, internships, community service, capstones) enhance
learning.
Russ Edgerton introduced the term “pedagogies of engage- 5. Supportive campus environment: Students are motivated and
ment” in his 2001 Education White Paper [1], in which he satisfied at schools that actively promote learning and stimu-
reflected on the projects on higher education funded by the Pew late social interaction.
Charitable Trusts. He wrote: Astin’s [4] large-scale correlational study of what matters in col-
lege (involving 27,064 students at 309 baccalaureate-granting insti-
“Throughout the whole enterprise, the core issue, in my view, is the mode tutions) found that two environmental factors were by far the most
of teaching and learning that is practiced. Learning ‘about’ things does predictive of positive change in college students’ academic develop-
not enable students to acquire the abilities and understanding they will ment, personal development, and satisfaction. These two factors—
need for the twenty-first century. We need new pedagogies of engagement interaction among students and interaction between faculty and
that will turn out the kinds of resourceful, engaged workers and citizens students—carried by far the largest weights and affected more gen-
that America now requires.” eral education outcomes than any other environmental variables

January 2005 Journal of Engineering Education 1

The problem is encountered first in the learning process” tion III). to predominantly cooperative learning research and practice. Figure 1(a). countable for the work of the group). 4. and offer model practices for cates that how students approach their general education and how the implementation (section V). enhancing critical thinking. captures the essence studies suggest that curricular planning efforts will reap much of the state of the art and practice of pedagogies of engagement. However. In the next section we present definitions of the classroom-based Problem-based learning (PBL) “is the learning that results from pedagogies of engagement that are used in engineering undergrad. such as Barkley. the Pascarella and Terenzini’s summary of twenty years of research real challenge in college teaching is not covering the material for the on the impact college has on student development further supports students. Smith. in the aforementioned white paper. Numerous authors. Astin [12] reported that 14 2. and Major [14]. the information passes not only from teacher to student. including the curriculum content factors. past fifty years (and maybe currently?). In other words. is a presentational model where. throughout the current paper. around” model. Macgregor. percent of engineering faculty and 27 percent of all faculty said they 3. is that engaging students in placed on pedagogy and other features of the delivery system. 6] of Harvard students strongly suggests that one of the crucial factors in the educational II. illustrated in Simply put. “To teach is to engage students in learning. Within cooperative activities individuals seek outcomes that their large classes with small-group activities or are working explic. This model. from this is consistent with Astin’s work [4]. the greater the student’s involvement or engagement in acad. as well as learning is principally the responsibility of the teacher. providing feedback. Barrows [16] identified six core features of PBL: 2 Journal of Engineering Education January 2005 . Their reasons clustered in the following cooperate to complete the task) and individual and group accountability categories: (each member individually as well as all members collectively ac- 1. The model of tions that not only increase a student’s active engagement in learning and teaching and learning represented in Figure 1(b) emphasizes that academic work but also enhance knowledge acquisition and some dimen. Carefully structured cooperative learning involves 350 to 600 student range. appreciating diversity.” the level of involvement were totally determined by individual student An alternative to the “pour it in” model is the “keep it flowing motivation. in the learning [10. those that are classroom-based. service while collaborative does not. the above conclusion would be uninter. problem. tator of learning experiences and opportunities. that is. who be- on the broader interpersonal and institutional context in which comes less an imparter of knowledge and more a designer and facili- learning takes place.” This quote. but also dence indicates that there are instructional and programmatic interven. and ative and collaborative learning?” Both pedagogies are aimed at 6. The model of the teaching-learning process in Figure 1(b) is thesis of interviews conducted with forty-eight individuals teaching predicated on cooperation—working together to accomplish shared undergraduate classes across the United States who are infusing goals. and Robinson [8] provided a syn. and some are teaching substantially larger classes. the greater his or her “the information passes from the notes of the professor to the notes level of knowledge acquisition and general cognitive development… If of the students without passing through the mind of either one. and ability. collection.studied. Cooperative learning is the instructional use of small groups so who were interviewed are working with classes of more than 100 that students work together to maximize their own and each others’ students. The faculty bers. and this paper. as one pundit quipped. collaborative learning. and sequence of engagement for engineering in particular and pedagogies in general. used cooperative learning in most or all of their classes. A common question is. This paper looks at a class of Cross. promoting social and emotional development. [9]. direction: problem-based learning. reducing student attrition. and undergraduate research. a substantial amount of evi. Cooper. To try We focus particularly on cooperative learning and on problem-based to minimize confusion. goes on to cite four stantive concerns” [13]. the simultaneous presence of interdependence and accountability sions of both cognitive and psychosocial change” [7]. The assessment study by Light [5. namely. “What is the difference between cooper- 5. use the term collaborative learning to refer pedagogies of engagement. learning. AN OVERVIEW development of the undergraduate is the degree to which the stu- dent is actively engaged or involved in the undergraduate experience. emic work or in the academic experience of college. promoting cognitive elaboration. ditions that involve both positive interdependence (all members must tionale for their practices. Next we provide the theoretical foundations and research [15]. are essential to learning. it’s uncovering the material with the students. The paper concludes by presenting faculty actually deliver the curriculum is more important than the some unanswered questions about classroom-based pedagogies of formal curriculum. are beneficial to themselves and beneficial to all other group mem- itly to create student communities within large classes. “marshalling peer group influence to focus on intellectual and sub- Edgerton. interest. evidence for effectiveness (section IV). The faculty practicing small-group learn. This is shown in Figure 1(b) and illustrates that esting as well as unsurprising. greater payoffs in terms of student outcomes if more emphasis is The thesis of this book. Astin and Light’s research Education for Judgment by Christensen et al. under con- ing in large classes provided extensive empirical and theoretical ra. 11]. the process of working toward the understanding or resolution of a uate classrooms followed by a brief summary of their history (sec. people working in teams to accomplish a common goal. the content. and their presence is at the heart of a student-engaged instructional approach. from students to teacher and among the students. courses. we will use the term cooperative learning learning. Their primary difference is that cooperative strands of pedagogical reform that are moving in the same broad learning requires carefully structured individual accountability. This result indi. the importance of student engagement: Consider the most common model of the classroom-based teaching and learning process used in engineering education in the “Perhaps the strongest conclusion that can be made is the least surprising.

and exercise science [19. The students con- ● Problems are the vehicle for the development of clinical currently take conventional courses. The Netherlands Problem-based learning is suitable for introductory sciences and en. with one or two instructors. (a) “Pour it in” model. criminal justice.umn. of the use of small group. These are examples ● Teachers are facilitators or guides. Project-based learning.”1 The largest-scale implementation of PBL in the United States in undergraduate courses (including large introductory courses) is at the University of Delaware in Newark. The class sizes are in the learning. Maastricht University in Maastricht . international relations. Allen and Duch recently described their implementa- tion of PBL problems for introductory biology [21]. In the chemical engi- Figure 2. Problem-based learning contrasted with Subject neering program there. political science. education. as drawn by Lila Smith in about 1975. where it is used in many courses. chemistry. more than 25 percent of the faculty have participated in weeklong formal work- shops on PBL. range thirty to fifty. including biology.edu/pbl. and a senior-level project course in geography. mathematics. or problem in a junior-level course. or engineering graduates are paid to www. Two models of the classroom-based teaching learning process. Woods at McMaster University has described the university’s implementation of PBL in engineering [17]. was emphasized in a recent publication on The process of problem-based learning was illustrated by project/problem-based learning at Aalborg University in Denmark Woods [17]. focuses on a project and typically a deliverable in the form of a re- ● New information is acquired through self-directed learning. McMaster University and in a junior-level civil engineering course ● Learning occurs in small student groups. Many addi- problems they have never seen before. mathemat- ics. port or presentation. PBL is used as part of two courses: one topic based learning. biochemistry. formulate and solve problems that follow from the material presented in the chapter or have a single “right” answer that one can find at the end of a book. tional examples are available on the University of Delaware PBL Web site since few science. PBL is used in a theme school program created at ● Learning is student-centered. An example of a PBL problem. The initial PBL work at the University of Delaware was supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Fund for Improvement of Post-Secondary Education (FIPSE). Delaware. (which implemented the McMaster PBL model in medicine in gineering classes (as it is for medicine.udel.” is to “estimate the di- ameter of the smallest steel wire that could suspend a typical Ameri- can automobile. where it is currently used) be- cause it helps students develop skills and confidence for formulating 1 Details of this example are available at www. which problem-solving skills. This is an important skill.edu/~smith. (all majors). and five topics in a senior-level course [22]. nutrition/dietetics. Figure 1. self-directed PBL where tutorless groups ● Problems are the organizing focus and stimulus for of five to six students function effectively. physics. January 2005 Journal of Engineering Education 3 .ce. (b) “Keep it flowing” model. who contrasted it with subject-based learning (Figure 2). 20]. marine studies. adapted from Adams’ [18] “dangling from a wire problem.

Project-based learning. when one of the founders of the Gestalt School of Psy- tain a network of schools implementing cooperative strategies and chology. governmental. The concept of a cooperative cet” (when you teach. according to the Oxford English In the mid-1960s Johnson and Johnson began training K-12 Dictionary. show me and I remember. The Roman philosopher. in 1981 the first in a series of papers on cooperative the United States was Colonel Francis Parker [27] in the late 1800s.. In the late 1700s. and the idea was brought to the America when and Smith were subsequently invited to present a workshop a Lancastrian school was opened in New York City in 1806 [26]. Center at the University of Minnesota resulted from their efforts to Spencer introduced the “conception of [society] as having a natural (a) synthesize existing knowledge concerning cooperative. In the is referred to the work of Dym et al. heads together. commercial. and individuality Active/Cooperative Learning: Best Practices in Engineering in the public schools. public schools began to emphasize The underling precept of cooperative and problem-based learn- interpersonal competition and this view predominated for well over ing is interdependence. while stating that (a) the essence of a group is the interdependence tion throughout the world in every subject area and from preschool 2 through graduate school and adult training programs [30]. Millis and Cottell [39] adapted Kagan’s coopera- method in instruction [28]. produced several one-page sum- cated cooperative learning with enthusiasm. consider the Student-Teams-Achievement-Divisions (STAD) and modifying long and rich history of the practical use of pedagogies of engage. Coleridge in 1822 and is defined. and ● projects. In the late 1930s.” (However. Kafka.asu. Johnson. one must have a learn. A comparison of problem. and individualistic efforts. From being relatively unknown which interdependence among members could vary. There is an excellent summary Most of the work on developing and researching models of coop- of these programs in PBL Insight [23]. J. and other “alternative assessments” that challenged students to integrate ideas and demonstrate their III.1974). learning model to higher education [40–42]. you learn twice). as “The fact or condition of depending each upon the teachers and a few post-secondary teachers how to use cooperative other. Following Parker. advocated The 1980s and 1990s brought an expansion of cooperative cooperative learning through such statements as.. Bell made extensive use of cooperative learning groups in paper on cooperative learning at this conference and Goldstein England and India. learning models into engineering. (d) Research on cooperative learning has been guided primarily by translate the validated theory into a set of concrete strategies and social interdependence theory. practicality. “Qui Docet Dis..” Many of the early references to the learning at the University of Minnesota. democracy. (probably the first) on cooperative learning at the 1982 FIE con- One of the more successful advocates of cooperative learning in ference. Edgerton [1] and others attribute the scripts. in the early 1970s DeVries and Edwards [31] at [24]. conference in Rapid City. and Johnson. Lakota Sioux Indians).g. Amos Comenius learning group was introduced to the engineering education com- (1592–1679) believed that students would benefit both by teaching munity at the 1981 IEEE/ASEE Frontiers in Education (FIE) and by being taught by other students. and Smith began adapting the conceptual cooperative ● cooperative learning within communities of learners. cooperative learning is now an accepted leagues. John Dewey’s ideal school involved tive learning structures for higher education faculty. (c) ford English Dictionary) conduct a systematic program of research to test the theorizing. structure in which all its institutions. Colonel Parker advo. The term interdependence was introduced by forty years [29]. One of his col- and unused in the 1960s. portfolios. which is often the basis for the senior Johns Hopkins University developed Teams-Games-Tourna- design courses in undergraduate engineering curriculum in the ments (TGT) and the Sharans in Israel developed the group in- United States. based and project-based learning is available in Mills and Treagust For example. Huxley.D. and developed an extensive Web site on and an intense devotion to freedom. idealism. (b) formulate theoretical models dustrial. and at universities in Australia. proposed that groups were dynamic wholes in procedures throughout the world. especially classroom-based practices such as cooperative (TAI) [32]. computer-assisted instruction into Team-Assisted Instruction ment. in- tive. Lewin [43]. [25]. Thousands of years ago the ing structures that involved detailed procedures. This was followed in the 1980s by Cohen develop- ing partner. Kagan [34] developed cooperative learn- learning and problem-based learning. Lancast. competi. S. etc. Goldstein also presented a er and A. [38]. See http://clte. Also. Seneca. 36] proverb “Tell me and I forget. The Cooperative Learning term. by Coleridge. 4 Journal of Engineering Education January 2005 . however. religious. cooperative learning approach. mutual dependence. early 1900s. Concurrently.edu/active. ● interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary curricula. late 1970s Slavin and colleagues at Johns Hopkins University Lest the reader think that the model of the teaching-learning extended DeVries and Edwards’ work by modifying TGT into process illustrated in Figure 1(b) is a modern creation. maries of concepts. THEORY AND RESEARCH EVIDENCE capabilities. were biology related. and (e) build and main. Confucius is typically credited with the Chinese ing a “complex instruction” version of cooperative learning [35. e. refined Kafka’s notions in the 1920s and 1930s and often the preferred instructional procedure at all levels of educa. involve me and Dansereau [37] developing a number of cooperative learning and I understand. etc. learning was published in Engineering Education. The theory was conceived of in the procedures for using cooperative learning. are inter-dependently bound” (Ox- concerning the nature of cooperation and its essential elements. schools who in turn started or changed their own programs. the reader vestigation procedure for cooperative learning groups [32].2 use of cooperative learning groups as part of his famous project More recently. J. “Structuring Parker started several schools and hosted many visitors to his learning goals to meet the goals of engineering education” [10]. such as numbered Talmud stated that to understand the Talmud. In the In the mid-1990s the Foundation Coalition embraced the last three decades of the nineteenth century. ● a “thinking” curriculum aimed at deep understanding. John Dewey promoted the Education. will not be further discussed in this paper. erative learning in the 1970s and 1980s focused on K-12 education. Spencer.

1 per- cent were field studies [30].2 percent) on coded will be analyzed in the coming months. formu. and technology (SMET) courses. The first of these studies was conducted practices of engineering faculty is Hake’s [52] comparison of stu- in 1924. transfer of learn- level was rekindled. thirty- lished in a journal. tudes of 0. respectively. quality of relationships. persistence (or retention). engineering. Effect sizes of this magni- tion as individuals discourage and obstruct each other’s efforts to tude indicate significant.55. and greater time spent on task. Other studies focused The social interdependence perspective assumes that the way so. competitive. tive. and atti- that is.49 and 0. tasks (such as laboratory exercises). persistence. thirty-nine of which met the rigorous inclusion crite- cent of the subjects were nineteen or older. tive. as reported in [41. writ- were conducted in college classrooms and laboratories using college ing. and Donovan’s [49] study of small-group (predominantly were conducted since 1970. engineering. Academ- motivates movement toward the accomplishments of the desired ic success is.4 per. above all. Springer. the college’s aim and the student’s aim. and individualistic learning in college and adult set. with mean effect sizes for achievement. Recent synthesis publications include Bowen’s [50] summary of A. One of Lewin’s graduate students. Be- common goals. (UNIV) students in Figure 3 show that student-student interaction gories: academic success. college (COLL). more than168 rigorous research studies were lated the theory of cooperation and competition in the late 1940s conducted comparing the relative efficacy of cooperative. intrinsic motivation. and individualistic efforts in tention. ria for meta-analysis. and procedural students as participants. The nals. ing from one situation to another. These studies and others yet to be cent) on persistence or retention. They achieve. For a learning.53 for competitive and dependence (competition) typically results in oppositional interac. and 82 percent were published in jour. The main effect of small-group learning among under- The next two sections summarize the research on cooperative graduates majoring in SMET disciplines was significant and posi- learning and problem-based learning at the post-secondary level. Of the thirty-nine studies analyzed. can be interpreted as saying.9 percent) presented data on achievement. when learning competitively will score in the sixty-ninth percentile Extensive research has been conducted on cooperative learn. These studies indicate that cooperative learning teract. In the absence of interdependence (individualistic efforts). promotes higher individual achievement than do competitive ap- dence (cooperation) results in promotive interaction as individuals proaches or individualistic ones. Cooperative Learning Research research on cooperative learning effects on chemistry and Prince’s Approximately 305 studies were located at the Cooperative Learn. however. and 0. Between 1970 and 1990 the majority of the learning in promoting meta-cognitive thought. in tradi- consisted of only one session. The U. Deutsch. were 0. in the 1990s. 76. that college students who there is no interaction as individuals work independently without would score at the fiftieth percentile level on an individual exam any interchange with each other [44]. which in turn determines outcomes. students who would score at the fifty- ing—defined in section II as the instructional use of small groups so third percentile level when learning individualistically will score in that students work together to maximize their own and each others’ the seventieth percentile when learning cooperatively [41]. for example. almost all the reported studies reasoning. 41. and higher-level promoting learning. The effect sizes. D. which indicate the encourage and facilitate each other’s efforts to learn. Negative inter. extended Deutsch’s work into classroom eighteen and older. respectively. mathe- the effectiveness of students working cooperatively.S. accuracy. dents’ scores on the physics Force Concept Inventory (FCI). results shown for high school (HS). substantial increases in achievement. tween 1924 and 1997.46. Research that has had a significant influence on the instructional tings. tional lecture courses and interactive engagement courses. competitive. 68 percent of the studies have been conducted since 1970. 31 percent were laboratory studies and 65 per.8 percent had randomly assigned groups. and other depen- cial interdependence is structured determines how individuals in. dent measures. tive. competi- [44. that focus on individual student acheivement. persistence (despite difficulties) in working to- interest in investigating the use of cooperative learning at the college ward goal accomplishment. From 1897 to 1989 nearly 600 experimental and more briefing on the meta-analysis procedure see [49]. matics. 1) Academic Success: One of the most important goals for en- group and (b) an intrinsic state of tension within group members gineering educators is that students succeed academically. competitively. Eighty five percent Stanne. creativity in problem solving. nine (23. There are also other subsets of ative learning has its roots in Deutsch’s work in the late 1940s in a the 305 studies showing significant advantages for cooperative study at MIT [49]. These 305 studies form the research summarized below.among members (created by common goals) that results in the adjustment to college life. the on difficult tasks.7 percent were pub. the studies of higher education and adult populations. mathematical tasks. [51] summary of research on active and cooperative learning in ing Center and were used to compare the relative efficacy of coopera. Johnson). seven (94. This represents the subset of the 305 studies practices [46–48]. 43. 42]. The relevant measures here include knowledge acquisition. individualistic approaches. 1980 or later. Before 1970. a mea- Sixty percent randomly assigned subjects to conditions. One of Deutsch’s graduate students.5 percent had randomly assigned cooperative) learning in SMET courses identified 383 reports from subjects and 18. 49 percent sure of students’ conceptual understanding of mechanics. and individualistic learning on the achievement of individuals rating with R. 45]. on students’ attitudes. than 100 correlational studies were conducted comparing the effec. and psychological during class time is associated with a greater percent gain on the January 2005 Journal of Engineering Education 5 . and eleven (28. The results hold for verbal tasks (such as reading. In addition. 0. magnitude of significance. and oral presentations). Johnson (collabo. there are a number of studies group’s being a “dynamic whole” so that a change in the state of any on students’ attitudes toward the college experience. when learning cooperatively. attitudes. willingness to take studies were conducted in K-12 settings. experimental research on cooper. and university The multiple outcomes can be classified into three major cate. Current meta-analysis work at the Cooperative Learning Center The findings outlined above are consistent with results from a at the University of Minnesota identified 754 studies that compare recent meta-analysis focused on college level-one science. and individualistically from 1897 to the present. re- tiveness of cooperative.51. member or subgroup changes the state of all other member or sub. Positive interdepen.

● Business and engineering majors are well below other fields ● Full active-engagement classes can produce substantially bet. much of the con. and feedback in thinking skills as well as other developed and changed in cooperative groups. and behavioral patterns are most effective when tice. 4) Attitudes Toward the College Experience: The recent work ● In the moderate active-engagement classes (one modified of NSSE provides detailed information on student engagement. The research on cooperative learning is extensive and com- proving thinking and problem solving. Cooperative learning researchers and practitioners have shown ● Engineering students experience more academic challenge that positive peer relationships are essential to success in college. language. Based on this research record. class’s conceptual gains. increase integration into college life. lected findings from the 2003 NSSE Annual Report [3] that speak ceptual learning relevant to FCI gains was occurring in the directly to practices in engineering schools include the following: modified class.” pelling. It has been more important than IQ. this finding holds even among students from different eth- nic. Boyle argues. and talking through material to.55).29) efforts. network of friends and classmates and failure to become academi. individualistic attitudes to be related to a wide variety of indices of psychological pathology. Further study of the figure shows that even the best lectures ed to a complex mixture of indices of health and pathology. and trust. Many researchers have investigated the quality of the relation- ships among students and between students and faculty. and competitiveness to be relat- FCI. become more socially skilled than do students working competi- ment. Se- small-class group-learning hour per week). it found cooperativeness Figure 3.47) or individualistic research: (effect size  0. skills. cultural. Further- people’s network quotient. A number of studies show that cooperative learning promotes gether have other benefits as well [55]: “Student participation. and gender groups. This confirms that discussions are superior to lectures in im. analysis results indicate that cooperation tends to promote higher Redish [53] provides the following conjectures based on Hake’s self-esteem than competitive (effect size  0. ● Engineering students spend less time preparing for class than cally involved in classes [54]. One achieve student gains that are at the low end of student gains in in. the measure of individual intelligence conducted over eight decades by numerous researchers with [56]. Working together with fellow stu. the research on cooperative learning has a validity and broad tions (relationships) with one another. and the teacher encouragement. solving problems together. is now applicability rarely found in the educational literature. Members of cooperative groups also ● In the traditional (low-interaction lecture-based) environ. more positive attitudes toward learning. The relevant studies included measures of interpersonal attraction. College students learning coopera- tively perceive greater social support (both academically and person- ally) from peers and instructors than do students working competi- tively (effect size  0. the subject area. Two major ● Engineering students have low levels of student-faculty in- reasons for dropping out of college are failure to establish a social teraction and supportive campus environment. They in- crease the quality of social adjustment to college life. and reduce congruencies between students’ interests and college curricula and in students’ sense of belonging in college 3) Psychological Adjustment: Attending college.60) or individualistically (effect size  0. markedly different orientations working in a variety of different 6 Journal of Engineering Education January 2005 . cal health. professors expect. The meta- teractive engagement classes. pation in integrative activities. which. cohesiveness. even in early implementation. Plot of class average pre-test and post-test FCI scores to be highly correlated with a wide variety of indices of psychologi- using a variety of instructional methods [52]. Fur- relate to improved critical thinking. especially engineering school. or NQ—their capacity to form connec. what the lecturer does can have a big impact on the tively or individualistically. The meta- analysis of the 305 studies mentioned above found that cooperative effort promotes greater liking among students than does competing with others (effect size  0. social class.68) or working on one’s own (effect size  0. esprit de corps. requires considerable personal adjustment for many students. ability. he speaks of the importance of of cooperative-learning procedures should be elevated. In reviewing the research. motivation. important aspect of psychological health is self-esteem. reduce uncertainty about attending col- lege. values. with its theoretical founda- 2) Quality of Relationships: Tom Boyle of British Telecom tion. The positive interpersonal relationships promoted by coopera- tive learning are crucial to today’s learning communities. and active and collaborative learning than many other fields Isolation and alienation are the best predictors of failure. add social goals for continued attendance. in prompt feedback from faculty and the frequency of partici- ter FCI gains. numerous social psychological theories predict that students’ other research and theory stressing the importance of active prac. dents. more. and student-student interaction positively college than do competitive or individualistic learning [41]. the confidence that college instructors have in the effectiveness calls this the age of interdependence. attitudes. These three activities confirm ther.51).

that is. however. knowledge will continue to expand. CLASSROOM IMPLEMENTATION informal cooperative learning students are asked every ten to fifteen minutes to discuss what they are learning (see Figure 4). faculty. ad-hoc groups groups of three to four. At about the same time the College of Human Medicine at Figure 4. including developing print materials. Van den Bossche. The characteristics of the learning environment had to fit the most faculty did not experience any form of cooperative or problem- previously described core model of PBL [16]. 3. formal cooperative learning groups. Of the three key aspects of cooperative learning and problem- based learning—theory. 228]. nationality.. problem-based learning are not widely practiced in engineering ature and literature reviews were selected as sources of rele. In this section we highlight some well-developed and honed prac- 5. however. Michigan State University implemented a problem-based program [58].3 In spite of these lowing inclusion criteria (page 536): implementation efforts and many others. The classroom medicine at the University of Maastricht (which implemented the practices involved with cooperative learning and problem-based McMaster PBL model in medicine in 1974) and to all majors at learning are complex to both design and implement. not only because they are they effective. We remain hopeful. January 2005 Journal of Engineering Education 7 . this literature was not included in the analysis. as well as research on PBL. They selected forty-three studies according to the fol. as well as to Aalborg University. base groups are the most commonly implemented by engineering This meta-analysis considered the influence of PBL on the ac. Segers. whereas the model of PBL in engineering usually involves together to achieve a joint learning goal in temporary. Part of the reason may be not only the difficulty of de- vant research. PBL is not a new idea. in Academic Medicine. and cooperative than under more controlled laboratory conditions. McMaster graduated its first PBL class in 1972. implementing. The volume and diversity of the research is almost unparalleled in educational re- search. Research participants have varied with re- spect to economic class. Informal cooperative learning groups (often referred to as ac- ed in a real-life classroom or programmatic setting rather tive learning).46). In one instance of IV. also because there are many ways to implement them in engineering. but application) of the students. and Gijbels [59] provided an tively focused on implementing active and cooperative learning for excellent and recent meta-analysis of PBL research. To maximize ecological validity. available for its effectiveness with this population of students” [51. It is important to note that PBL. tices. The subjects of study had to be students in tertiary education. erative learning groups also ensure that misconceptions. and methods of measuring dependent variables. Informal coop- models. The researchers have employed a wide variety of tasks.e. in. cooperative learning and 1. Each provides opportunities for students to be intellectually quisition of knowledge and the skills to apply knowledge. predominantly several years. incorrect understanding. and that learning experiences are personalized.D. find it easier to start in recitation or laboratory sections or design pro- cluding landmark work by Albanese and Mitchell [61] and Vernon ject courses. typically without a tutor. often using formal cooperative learning that last from a few minutes to one class period [41]. sex. methods of structuring cooperative learning. research. manage during the term. He noted that the results are whose principal responsibility is to provide support and encourage- mixed for medical school students and that “while PBL has been ment for all their members. it had its beginnings in 1968 in the M. but also that 2. Although non-empirical liter.edu/active. age. the study had to be conduct. and cultural back- ground. Base groups are long-term cooperative learning groups and Blake [62]. Ontario. Problem-Based Learning Research Problem-based learning is undergoing a renaissance in profes- sional education. with both a statistically significant vote count and combined lecture classes and is described only briefly. and gaps in understanding are identified and correct- ed. many faculty Prince provides an excellent summary of the PBL research. A. Canada. an extensive Web in medicine. as studied in medical edu. based learning during their undergraduate (or graduate) education. and a CD-ROM to support implementation. Bookends on a class session. suggest that students in PBL are better at applying their knowledge Informal cooperative learning is commonly used in predominately (skills). sub- ject areas. and methodologies. classrooms. signing. site. The dependent variables used in the study had to be an oper. to ensure that each member gets used in undergraduate engineering programs there is very little data the help he or she needs to be successful in the course and in college.asu.colleges and countries. program at McMaster University in Hamilton. B. Formal cooperative effect size (0. The NSF Foundation Coalition has ac- Dochy. The work had to be empirical. Problem-based learning expanded to other disciplines besides is the least developed and probably the most difficult. typically involves seven to ten students with a designated Informal cooperative learning consists of having students work tutor. p. Implementing Informal Cooperative (Active) Learning cation. that the use of these pedagogies ationalization of the knowledge and/or skills (i. conceptual or procedural material is essential. and managing such a program. The results active and personally interactive both in and outside the classroom. 4. and practice—the practice piece 3 See http://clte. Also noteworthy is that research on the efficacy of learning can be used in content intensive classes where the mastery of PBL is beginning to extend to non-medical fields [60]. including engineering education [57].

Darmofal has written about his use of informal cooperative 1) Positive Interdependence: The heart of cooperative learning is learning and concept tests in aeronautical engineering [64]. basis of the characteristics presented in Table 1. Students must believe they are linked with similarly Martin and colleagues have been actively experimenting others in a way that one cannot succeed unless the other members of with information cooperative learning and concept tests in fluid the group succeed and vice versa. courses. Lisensky. and Smith [41]. learning groups are differentiated from poorly structured ones on the correct. answer (learning goal interdependence). Implementing Formal Cooperative Learning Groups nale for their answer and to turn to their neighbor to discuss it. In other words. members to (1) agree on an answer for the group (group product-goal Patterson. explaining it. istics we can distill five essential elements to successful implementation Many examples of informal cooperative learning in practice are of formal cooperative learning groups: positive interdependence. groups. and move around the class listening to what students are say- summarizing it. how large classes can be infused with more active and interactive mal cooperative learning. SMET pedagogical reform remains the problem of whether and As faculty gain familiarity with real-time assessment and infor. ing. struction. Novak. and Johnson. if most students choose the correct answer to a concept question. they often modify the format. to-face promotive interaction. Well-structured formal cooperative the answers to the concept question are a mixture of correct and in. interdependence). Garvin. It also provides ing lecturing and direct teaching. learning methods” [70]. 8 Journal of Engineering Education January 2005 . Although three to four minute turn-to-your-partner discus. In formal cooperative learning are available in numerous references. take a dents do the intellectual work of organizing material. and Wamser [66]. perhaps in a different way. interspersing turn-to-your-partner discussions throughout the lec. involved in understanding what they are learning. From these character- compare answers. the instructor ensures that stu. and integrating it into existing conceptual net. break. Ellis. Further details of informal cooperative learning ceive that they sink or swim together. and some can be as short as thirty seconds. Informal cooperative learning ensures that students are actively sults in slightly less lecture time. and (3) fulfill assigned role Table 1. the instructor might ask students to reflect on the underlying ratio. If typically stay together longer. Comparison of learning groups. Michael and Modell [68]. is sions are illustrated in Figure 4. face- available. Dur. are given more complex tasks. reorganize notes. Meeker. and Wolfgang [67]. teamwork skills. (2) make sure each member can explain the groups’ Felder and Brent [69]. and positive interdependence. but re-engages the students. many faculty provide one to two stressed by Seymour’s research: “The greatest single challenge to minutes. including Mazur [63]. and instructor might try to explain it again. time for instructors to gather their wits. Lorenz. positive interdependence may by structured by asking group Landis. ple. Johnson. Mazur [63] describes the interactive aspects of a ninety. If Formal cooperative learning groups are more structured than infor- most students choose an incorrect answer to a concept question. and see if they can reach agreement on an answer. individual accountability/personal re- minute lecture on Newton’s laws in Chapter 5 of his book Peer In. the instructor might ask students to turn to their neighbor. For exam. Listening to student discussions can give instructors direction works. the mal cooperative learning groups. B. The importance of faculty engaging students in introductory ture. using procedures such as those summarized above. students must per- mechanics [65]. Breaking up lectures with short cooperative processing times re. and group processing. Common informal cooperative learning techniques include and insight into how well students understand the concepts and “focused discussions” before and after the lecture (bookends) and material being taught. sponsibility.

providing direc. Details on im- 5) Group Processing: Professors need to ensure that members of plementing jigsaw (assigning material to be learned individually and each cooperative learning group discuss how well they are achieving then taught to a small cooperative learning group) can be found in their goals and maintaining effective working relationships. students are held individually ac. Faculty often introduce and emphasize Detailed aspects of the instructor’s role in structuring formal co- teamwork skills by assigning differentiated roles to each group mem. warrant a formal group. higher-level in learning situations and and therefore lack the needed teamwork reasoning. and reminds students to practice col. Mourtos. January 1993 through July 2004. Before choosing and implementing a formal cooperative learn- vidual exams. individually with instructions that the ones who finish first are to dividual student is assessed and the results given back to the individ. for example). Com. been communicated. Groups [77. Cooperation is not assigning a report to a group of students so they can subsequently perform better as individuals.responsibilities (role interdependence). trust building. and group members ing other students. Cooperation is not having students do a task countable to do their share of the work. (3) explaining the task and the positive interdependence. and conflict manage. laborative skills consistently. including skills in leadership. mon ways to structure individual accountability include giving indi. in tainly not contributing to the learning of others and may not be fact. and ensuring that every. for the phrase “cooperative enables learning groups to focus on group maintenance. The performance of each in. students learn about documenting group work by ifying the objectives for the lesson. For example. Such processing tion. developing strategy and monitoring how tional decisions. skills to doing so effectively. the task should be complex enough to sion making. and the instructor’s goals should include ment. and approach for which they hold them- classmates. encourage. To ensure where one student does all the work and the others put their names that each member is strengthened. on the product as well. Students learn together ments. e. [73] in this issue plans for structured controversy (using advocacy sub-groups in a co- for elaboration on professional skills. See Shuman. January 2005 Journal of Engineering Education 9 . A full-text search of the Journal of Engineering Educa- make decisions about what to continue or change. Many additional examples of cooperative learning in prac- need to describe what member actions are helpful and unhelpful and tice are available. Cooperation is not having students sit at the purpose of cooperative learning groups is to make each member a same table to talk with each other as they do their individual assign- stronger individual in his or her own right.. 78]. maintaining student involvement in processing. and help. missing its essence. Silent students are uninvolved students who are cer. and past learning. whether or not it is the best approach for the situation: sufficient 4) Teamwork Skills: Contributing to the success of a cooperative time should be available for students to work in groups both inside effort requires teamwork skills. least one thing that could be improved. communication. Teamwork skills are being emphasized by employers and and (5) evaluating students’ learning and helping students process the ABET engineering criteria. help- more assistance in completing the assignment. and teamwork skills. and resources are becoming available how well their group functioned. terdependence). (4) monitoring students’ learning and intervening within the groups one in the group understands and can explain by serving as the to provide task assistance or to increase students’ teamwork skills. shared resources (resource in. group size. Some of the keys to successful process- ing are allowing sufficient time for it to take place. and tive learning groups with stable membership whose primary ensuring that clear expectations as to the purpose of processing have responsibility is to provide each student with the support. method of assigning students to the group is working by serving as process recorder. The group needs to know who needs near other students. The five essential elements of a well-structured formal coopera- 2) Face-to-Face Promotive Interaction: Once a professor es. to help students develop teamwork skills (Smith [71] and Johnson For guidelines on designing formal cooperative learning lesson and Johnson [72]. and randomly calling ing strategy. performance goals. such as critical thinking. 1997 feedback on their participation. although need to know they cannot hitchhike on the work of others. each of these is important in cooperative learning. 2001 [81]. Cooperation is more than being physically ual and perhaps to the group. he or she must ensure that stu. using self-and peer-assessment. the reader is referred to [75. help the slower students. facilitates learning” returned 132 hits. Three excellent examples of engineer- the learning of collaborative skills. deci. operative context). and support each other’s efforts to learn. or sharing material among students. 76]. discussing material with other students. checker. and Pimmel. Other ways of structuring pos. Many faculty who believe they are using cooperative learning are. Students are expected to explain orally to each other how to solve problems. ensures that members receive ing applications are Felder and Brent.g. There is a crucial difference between sim- contributing to their own learning. groups. heterogeneous coopera- minding students to use their teamwork skills during processing. ply putting students in groups to learn and in structuring coopera- 3) Individual Accountability/Personal Responsibility: One tion among students. These skills have to be taught just as purposefully and precisely the development of skills that have been shown to be affected posi- as academic skills. (2) making a number of instruc- serving as the task recorder. [80]. tive learning group presented above are nearly identical to those of tablishes positive interdependence. re. 2001 [79]. explain to each other the connections between present selves mutually accountable” [74]. several conditions should be evaluated to determine on individual students to report on their group’s efforts. tion to the group by serving as coordinator. and outside the classroom. et al. Many students have never worked cooperatively tively by cooperative learning. Cooperative base groups are long-term. operative learning groups are described in [41] and include (1) spec- ber. teach their knowledge to to a common purpose. or a division of labor (task interdependence). A common procedure for group processing is itive interdependence include having common rewards such as a to ask each group to list at least three things the group did well and at shared grade (reward interdependence). making it specific C. Implementing Cooperative Base Groups rather than vague. discuss with each other the nature of “A team is a small number of people with complementary skills who are committed the concepts and strategies being learned. high-performance teams in business and industry as identified by dents interact to help each other accomplish the task and promote Katzenbach and Smith: each other’s success.

service learning. 82–87]. There are still many unanswered questions graduate courses and programs. insights. or concerns they wish to discuss. Members of base groups should exchange e-mail addresses gogies of engagement. Implementing Problem-Based Learning 3. used in professional school graduate programs. the effects of learning communities is just beginning to son are incorporated [41. problem-based learning. psychological adjustment. Base groups are used by many engineering faculty in under.encouragement. and institutions” [90. operative education. For example. iii]. p. 88]. what does the balance depend on? (Level of course? Type of course? Prior background of the students?) 6. 2. When students have successes. They stay the same during the entire course and possibly broader category of pedagogies. is there an optimum balance between group and individual work? If so. Problem-based cooperative learning. emerge. What kind of “teacher effects” have been found for pedago- gies of engagement? Are there teachers who cannot succeed with these methods? Are there teachers who are more suc- cessful with more traditional lecturing? 5. some by faculty seeing it as 10 Journal of Engineering Education January 2005 . Problem-based learning is a natural tech. 4. those who serve on teaching teams..g. work to be done in advancing pedagogies of engagement: extending questions. relationships. What are the differences in the benefits that result from properly implemented cooperative learning and properly im- plemented collaborative learning? Are there circumstances when collaborative would be preferable to cooperative? 7. Can group-based methods have a negative effect on indi- vidual skills? How much of an effect. Base groups typically manage the daily periments that elucidate the key components of successful deploy- paperwork of the course using group folders or Web-based discussion ment. Are some types of engineering classes (freshman or senior. caution us that “learning community assessment and research can and should probe more deeply into the nature of learning community interventions. and engineering co-ops. These particular pedagogies are examples of a experiences. quality of and overall satisfaction with college. commonly referred to as the peda- longer. Some of this interest is motivated Figure 5. the Aalborg experience). and what can be done to avoid it? Said another way. conducting well-formulated ex- members of their base group. There is still much wish to meet outside of class. They are also commonly 1. and fostering and expanding the community of engineering groups. they can contact other the theories that form their basis. In this context they lectures or project-based or labs. A typical format for problem-based (e. service learning. in part because of their effectiveness about pedagogies of engagement and their efficacy. Are there synergistic effects among the pedagogies of engagement? D. a recent study by Zhao and Kuh [89] examined the relationship between participating in learning communities and student engagement for first-year and se- V. by faculty seeing peer assessment as a way to help students improve their cooperative skills. They found that “participating in a learning community is positively linked This paper focused on illustrating how cooperative learning and to engagement as well as student self-reported outcomes problem-based learning can advance academic success. and the nature of their impact on the learning of students. co- ences [17. et al. Other examples include learning communi- and/or phone numbers and information about schedules. and assistance needed to make academic progress. and attitudes toward the Base groups personalize the work required and the course learning college experience. THE WORK AHEAD nior students at 365 four-year institutions. 20. theoretical or applied) more are usually referred to as cohort groups : five to six students who stay or less conducive to any of the pedagogies of engagement? together during the duration of their graduate program. faculty who use them. and inductive methods besides nique to use in engineering because it models the way most engi. 59. inquiry-based learning. How might emerging peer-assessment methods be inte- grated into pedagogies of engagement? Are there down- sides to these assessment methods in supporting the inten- sions of cooperative learning and of collaborative learning? There is increasing interest in the engineering education community in implementing peer assessment in team- based learning settings. dis- cooperative learning is shown in Figure 5. For example. engineering) of learning communities. as they may ties. and because they are easy to implement. The format illustrates the covery learning.” Taylor. such as project-based learning neers work in practice. What can be said about the effectiveness (in general and in Problem-based learning has been described in numerous refer. and just-in-time teaching? What studies of professor’s role in a formal cooperative learning lesson and shows these methods should be carried out? Rigorous research on how the five essential elements of a well-structured cooperative les.

providing leadership to group efforts. especially when they are studying conceptually com- department or college level besides the project-based learn. pupils. etc. Creating Significant Learning Experiences: An Integrated Approach to Designing College Courses. Competition also a call for us to explicitly consider how students engage in their leads to loss. Little is known about ● requires uncoverage. as Colleagues of the authors who have applied these filters to their outlined in a recent NSF report authored by Sheppard et al.” Classroom-based pedagogies of engagement. “We have grown up in a climate of competition between people. such as the tradi. a way of demonstrating this ability. Their approach consists of three stages. not only so that more of them learn the material at a deeper learning) been demonstrated by research? What studies of level. we see now. competition.. To maximize students’ efforts to institutionalize pedagogies of engagement at the achievement. divisions. knowing how to build trust in a working relationship. Every example ward we have numerous tools available to guide our thinking. ative learning be parsed out to determine which are the but we all should be mindful of Wilbert McKeachie’s [99] advice on most and least important (or if you can delete any of the cri. identifying desired results. economists that competition will solve our problems. and tional lecture. the first stage consists of team. teams. How have they succeeded? What barriers to to remain passive while they are learning. is destructive. One way to get students institutionalization exist and how can they be overcome? more actively involved is to structure cooperative interaction into Can a NSSE-like methodology play a role in assessing the classes. a similar set of ques. they will have the satisfaction of knowing DIFFERENTLY they have helped prepare students for a world where they will need The research findings on pedagogies of engagement outlined in to coordinate their efforts with others on the job. gether as a system. and environments” [95. Have the benefits of pedagogies of engagement that extend taught. It is operation and transformation to a new style of management. but also so that they get to know their classmates and build a this nature might be undertaken? sense of community with them. In carrying team project. p. 8. professor of nuclear engineering) James Duderstadt’s call for action: We close with the compelling case for the importance of cooper- ation and interdependence that W. Actually. such as of cooperation is one of benefit and gains to them that cooperate” [100]. and be contributing members of their com- NSSE. de- partments. along with student engagement data available through personal relationships.g. real skill. This is just a sampling of the many questions still to be addressed It is equally important that when seniors graduate they have de- about pedagogies of engagement! Of course. plex and content-dense materials. or process that says engineering graduates will have demonstrated an ● represents a big idea or has enduring value beyond the “ability to function on multidisciplinary teams” is motivating classroom. can help break place at the individual classroom level. Cohen [93]. to career success or to life-long learners. research is sorely needed to study this influence. schools. Government. topic. We know it is easy to slip into the traditional mode of lecture. recitation sessions. It is vital for students to have peer support and to be active beyond graduation (e. Imagine what might happen if the same process were applied Schaeffer et al. bers of faculty teams who create and maintain engineering programs. and pass. and a recent book by Fink [97]. We have been taught by This is a call for us. CONCLUSION: THINKING BIG AND THINKING cooperatively with others. getting them to teach course material to one another and to impact of these pedagogies? dig below superficial levels of understanding of the material being 10. and some by faculty seeing it as a way to incorporate ac. The work of Eschenbach [92]. skillfully balance this paper. underscore former University of Michigan President (and munities and society. processes. and stages 2 and 3 involve determining ac- tual work contribution in awarding individual grades on a ceptable evidence and planning instruction. some engineering programs to conceive of peer assessment as ● resides at the heart of the discipline. Education: university will find it necessary to set aside their roles as teachers and instead become designers of learning experiences. People pulling in opposite directions on a rope only exhaust college experience in both formal and informal ways. with the aim for everybody to win. their cognizant editor of our engineering programs. as suggested by Wiggins and McTighe this special issue of the Journal of Engineering Education. listening with tions can be generated about other pedagogies. for his January 2005 Journal of Engineering Education 11 . work itself. themselves: they go nowhere. instructors should not allow them ing at Aalborg. Felder and Brent’s [96] guidelines for course design considering the ABET engineering criteria. Can the effects of the individual criteria that define cooper. respectively. It would be better if everyone would work to- to consider not only the content and topics that make up an engineer. 7]. In addition. Edwards Deming made in his “It could well be that faculty members of the twenty-first century college or book The New Economics for Industry. What we need is co- ing degree but also how students engage with these materials. What we need is cooperation. [94] are examples of this type of research both at the course level and at the program level by faculty teams. If faculty provide their stu- dents with training and practice in the social skills required to work VI. such as 9. a way to reduce the number of “free-loaders” on a cooperative [98]. veloped skills in talking through material with peers. and how peer assessment affects the nature of the cooperative ● offers potential for engaging students. that provides a comprehensive model to redesign courses we ACKNOWLEDGMENTS hope will have widespread applicability in engineering. as faculty teaching particular courses and as mem. faculty consider to what extent an idea. lecturing: “I lecture only when I’m convinced it will do more good teria and still get the benefits of cooperative learning)? than harm. laboratory learning. the ABET engineering criterion out stage 1. courses report that one-fourth to one-third of the material does not [91]. universities. Most pedagogies of engagement implementations take cooperative learning and problem-based learning. Have there been any the traditional lecture-dominant pattern. In moving for. We might even take a “backward design” approach to redesigning The authors are grateful to Rich Felder.

. Collaborative Learning [35] Cohen.. and Robinson. [39] Millis.E.. [4] Astin..: Harvard University.. Vol.. D. Dissertation. Columbia University.. D.. R. pp.S. D. 1–35. J. Mass. 1808.F. pp. 5..W. 1986. Cal. 1982. and Feletti. and the Authority of Knowledge. Practice. J. A. January 2005.. [37] Dansereau.. dence. search Journal.. C. and Gijselaers. invented and practiced by University Press. Education for [30] Johnson. Vol.edu/ pubs/ Practice in Higher Education.” Finding and Insights from Twenty Years of Research. Garvin. No. 1994. Chair. Cambridge.: Ph.R. Agogino. 1981.: Jossey Bass. L. “Problem-Based Learning in Medicine and Be. San Francisco. [36] Cohen.: Lexington Books. No. Fort Worth.F. Dallas.. and Gamson.. Jossey-Bass. Smith.J. 3.Y. R. Johnson.J. Jossey-Bass. yond: A Brief Overview. “The Power of Education Faculty. “Engi- San Francisco. The School and Society. B... and Denise Curti who ensured that [20] Duch. gies for Energizing Large Classes: From Small Groups to Learning Commu. 94. and Bjork. and Cottell. In addition.C.S. P. 26–32. [9] Christensen. “The Use of [17] Woods.” New Directions for Teaching and Learning.: [18] Adams. Annual Learning Goals to Meet the Goals of Engineering Education. Washington. N. and Edwards.. and Duch. 6.. Washington. D. 1994.. L. pp. Problem-Based Learning: An tive Small Groups.T. neering Design Thinking. [7] Pascarella.. Vol.R. 27–30. Education White Paper. “Seven Principles for Good [23] PBL Insight Vol. “The Children’s Crusader: Colonel Francis W...W.” Prism. an Engineer.. “Issues in Implementation in an Otherwise Con- [1] Edgerton.” Journal of Engineering [5] Light. 1991. K. [38] Smith..H.G. “Learning Games and Student [11] Johnson.. How College Affects Students: [27] Campbell. 39. [12] Astin..D. Society of Experimental Social Psychology. [22] Woods. 1981.. and Leifer.E. R. N. K. 1. Proceedings. Z. D. Vol. Cal. Leavey. 1980. Conference.. 2000. 1987. Mass..A. in Wilkerson. Cooperative Teams: Their Effects on Classroom Processes. 2003/mills_treagust03. ventional Programme. 122–129. 2004. pp. and Johnson. E.. A.html.samford. 2001..: Educational Technology.W..J.: Springer. X–Y. Cambridge.. http://www. Vol.F.” Symposium: Efforts to Bridge Social Psychology and Education. The Power of Problem- the final manuscript was properly formatted. S.N. Interdepen. Mass. A. E. nal of Engineering Education. and Sweet. Cambridge.L. Teaching...J. San Francisco. pewun. Classroom. pp. Making the Most of College. pp. 1965. Eleventh Annual Frontiers in Education Conference. L. Children in Cooperation and Competition. and Terenzini. 1993. dergradforum. Tex. 2nd ed. [21] Allen. eds. H. Lexington.E. Improvements in Education. and O-rings: The World of IEEE/ASEE. Cal..P. ing Education.. New R. B. Johnson. October 15-16.. [16] Barrows. 1998. Vol. D. 1996. O. eds. Parker. Entropy. 1991.T. Learning. Cooper.. D. and Groh..W. and Johnson. B. Approach to Medical Education... G.. of Chicago Press. A. R. pp. 1991. J. Phoenix.” in the Oryx Press.R. 2001.. Johnson.. to Jim Adams for Wilkerson. E. Review of Educational Research.W. “Restructuring the Classroom: Conditions for Produc- [15] Barrows. 1976. [25] Dym. N. Collaborative Learning: Higher Education. Cal.” London: Kogan Page.A. 1924. Research.” American Education Re- Learning: Increasing College Faculty Instructional Productivity. Cooperative Learning.W. D.. Bulletin. Containing a [6] Light. R. the author.. M. and Major. pp. D. 1994.pdf. Cliffs. 1974. Believing: Enhancing Human Perfor- Directions for Teaching and Learning. 1. J. “Strate. pp. 1996.. 2. E.: Harvard Social Psychology: The Interrelationship Among Theory. er Education: Theory and Practice. Washington. Education. of the system of education.” American Association for Higher Education pbl/pblv2is1. 2003. D. 221–226. Ill: University [8] MacGregor. Cal..: American Council on Education and Problem-Based Learning in Teaching Introductory Science Courses. 1980. [10] Smith. Md. Groh. D.: Saunders. R. “Cooperative Learning and Judgment: The Artistry of Discussion Leadership.: Jossey-Bass Publishers. D..org/wp1. Designing Groupwork: Strategies for the Heterogeneous Techniques: A Practical Guide to Promoting Learning in Groups. alization: Mathematics Teacher’s Manual. Cambridge. Y. nities.: National Academy Press. and Johnson. S. 307–318.. and Smith. K. Cal..T. and Madden. Bloomington. No. and Business School. Ariz. S. 68. Teachers College. D.A. 12... 81.au/journal/ ondary Research. 12 Journal of Engineering Education January 2005 . What Matters in College? Four Critical Years Revisited.. and Allen. 3.T. D. 3–7. [26] Lancaster.. C. Ontario: Donald R. 1991. Thinking Toward Solutions: Problem- REFERENCES Based Activities for General Biology.E. Waterdown.. 1991.: Teachers College Press.J. Eris. San Francisco. PBL. Cross. C. 72. [28] Dewey. ASHE. Cooperative Learning. references pp. in Druckman. D. Ch. 319–327). Team-Assisted Individu- 1993. in Boud. and Gijselaers. San Francisco. “Structuring Harris Cooper. and Tamblyn. eds. D. R. J. sources for Teachers.pdf.. San Juan Capistrano. 3–11. who helped us focus this paper. N. H.consistent support throughout the writing effort. 1998.: The George [32] Sharan.C. New York. D. ERIC Report on Higher Education.. K. New Directions for Teaching and Learn- thor teams wishes to acknowledge the many (anonymous) reviewers ing 68. Woods. and Sharan. A. London: Printed and sold by J.. http://www.aaee.. [34] Kagan. 10. Chicago. Stylus.H. J. 2004.. IN: Center for Postsec.com. J. Problem-Based Learning: How to Gain the Most from Cooperative Learning Groups in Engineering Education. Small Group Teaching.. Englewood Washington University. 2001. D. and Treagust. [14] Barkley. the au. eds. pp. [31] DeVries. and Johnson.. Baltimore.. S. “Engineering Education—Is [3] National Survey of Student Engagement: The College Student Problem-Based or Project-Based Learning the Answer?” Austraaslian Jour- Report—2003 Annual Report. John Hopkins University: Center [13] Bruffee. P.A. and Learning.. Lancaster. 1999. “Engineering Outcomes. 83–111. B. Bringing Problem-Based Learning to High- providing an insightful review at a critical stage.... Frey. Flying Buttresses. http://www.. No.Y.T. K.: Johns Hopkins Uni.: Re- versity Press. Duch.. R. mance. [33] Slavin.: Harvard University Press. K. D. No.W.A. 1. D...” Ch. P. The Harvard Assessment Seminars: Second Report.E. Cooperative Learning for Higher [19] Allen.J. K. [29] Pepitone. Indiana University.: Jossey-Bass.. The Challenges of Problem-based Learning.: Jossey-Bass.T. Abridged. 1991. [2] Chickering. [24] Mills.. Remembering. Mass. New York. for Social Organization of Schools. 1992. Based Learning: A Practical “How To” for Teaching Undergraduate Courses in any Discipline..C.: Harvard complete epitome. Mass.. R. W. E.” Engineer.

Bieber. N. 275–319. 2001.A.. Edina.. and Brent.” Review of Educational Research. E. R. D. M. R. New York.W. Vol... “Educating the Future: Impact of Pedagogical Re- [43] Lewin. [81] Pimmel. Active Learn.: Lawrence Erlbaum.. E. Six-Thousand Student Survey of Mechanics Test Data for Introductory [73] Shuman. Group Learning on Undergraduates in Science. N. pp. [65] Martin. pp. and Wamser. pp. 2005.” American Journal of Physics.” New Directions for work. Assen/Maastricht. Boston.D. [53] Redish. 86. “Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the Re. Traditional Methods: A and Group Skills.. 116. 413–422.” Academic Medicine.: Sage Pub- Press. E. 86. “Effect of Small Mahwah. 7th ed. W. [49] Springer. pp. and Smith.A.: Harvard Business School [77] Aronson. [46] Johnson.. “Ef. January 2005. Segers. and Blake. T. Patterson. gy’” Science Education. and Johnson.” in Bonwell. No. Mass. Mahwah. New York.W. and McGourty. 90. M.. Mich.. D. R. pp.. Chicago. eds. H. 10.T. 2. Mass. 28–37. J..T.. 44. D. Ac.H. [60] Dochy. Journal of Engineering Education. M. N.H. Mathematics. L.J. Edina. Academic Book Company. No. C. 1. 69.. 2001..A. M. Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Stu.Y. pp. ing and Learning in the College Classroom: A Review of the Research Literature.” Journal Schmidt. 1. Johnson. Cambridge. F. No. and DeVolder. puting the Future IV: Frontiers of Computational Fluid Dynamics. 2000.. dent Attrition.. and Smith. [80] Mourtos. 35–37. Vol. [40] Johnson. Meeker. R.J.: Erlbaum. Human Relations. Upper Saddle River. J. Teamwork and Project Management. Vo. pp. L. 3.. BEST Series.E. and Johnson. Teaching Physics with the Physics Suite. L. Lincoln. [47] Johnson..L. K... http://www. from practice and emerging issues. Ellis.. S. 1978. E. and Smith. D. The Netherlands: Van Gorcum. 4. R. gineering. 213–240.A.: Allyn & Bacon. Scheifley.W...A..A. The Wisdom of Teams: Creat- N. R.. Lisensky. N. Upper Saddle River. eds. 533–568. [59] Evensen. ture: Cooperative.O. Online at Vol.: McGraw-Hill. Cal.K.I.” Engineering Education. Mitchell. Johnson.A. 68. Pintrich. Tutorials in Problem-Based of Cooperation & Collaboration in College Teaching. pp. lications. pp. January 2005 Journal of Engineering Education 13 . Book Company. P. 2003. 1993. Minn: Interaction ing Work? A Meta-Analysis of Evaluative Research. “Instructional Goal Struc. David W.T. J. 1997. [66] Landis.: form in Aerodynamics. No. J. and Smith. [42] Johnson. Com- McGraw-Hill. 1996. Engineer. 1996. gineering Education. and Modell.S. P.edu/felder-public/Columns/Active. V. Vol. Makes Organizations Work..L.. [74] Katzenbach. Besterfield-Sacre. “Development of a Concept [45] Deutsch.C. Vol. C. 2003.W. Competitive. No. J.. ed. 74. 13.. Research. D.pdf.. 550–563. 1. 1991. Yi-Guang. “Does Problem-Based Learn- ing: Cooperation in the College Classroom. 77. 1970. 3.” in [79] Brent. 2000. T. rooms.. 2004... [62] Vernon. Roger T. pp. FIE 2003 Conference Proceedings.: Jossey-Bass. Vol. K. 2nd ed.J. 32. Beverly Hills. Van den Bossche. Jones.J. 1986. D.. “Tracking the Processes of Change in U.. 68. [67] Novak.. New Directions for Teaching and Learn- [58] Jones. L. Learning. Ill.: University of Chicago Press. L. No. Upper Saddle River. K. 64–74. Nov. 1998. MN: Interaction Review of Literature on its outcomes and implementation Issues. R. R. “Interactive-Engagement vs. 2004.. 2003. 1.T. No. 306–309. pp... 71–82.. No.Y. ing the High-Performance Organization.” Learning and Instruc. J.: The Regents of the University of Michigan. V. pp. 26–35.. R. M. 1998.. “The Physics Courses..T. [55] McKeachie. N.. 1949... Vol. “Cooperative [63] Mazur.. 37.. S. Joining Together: Group Theory [52] Hake.T..M. Mathematics. Capstone Design Course. tion. Karl A. Change. H. 1997.: Prentice Hall. “Effective Strategies for Cooperative Learning. [72] Johnson. Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual. Cambridge. “A Quantitative Literature Review of Cooperative [70] Seymour. Active Learning in Secondary and Theory and Research. D.: Prentice Hall. pp. Rinehart & Winston. 52–81. 66. Engineering. Vol.F. W.. Vol 68. “A Problem-Based Curriculum—Ten Years of Experience.” Journal of Engineering Education. Springer- [44] Deutsch... Vol. Vol. 2000.” Verlag. and Ways.. Learning Returns to College: What Evidence Is There that it Works? N.. S. “Constructive Ann Arbor. and Smith. 1999. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.. 69–75. and Gijselaers. [61] Albanese.Y. “Structured Controversy.G. M.. C. “Cooperation and Trust: Some Theoretical Notes.” Journal of Engineering Education.. N.” in Caughey. [69] Felder.. and Donovan. Vol. 1984. C.. New York. D. F. pp. 93. 1. eds. pp. Newell. Vol. 1999. 5. Mass.: Harvard Busi- [54] Tinto. R. and Sutherlund.. [51] Prince. and Hmelo. pp. P... N. A Dynamic Theory of Personality. D. 1974.. 2.. 30. D. 1989.A... Medicine. 4. Chemistry Concepts: A Pathway to Interactive Class- N. 2001. and Christian. J... Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. 282–283. or Individualistic. [76] Johnson... The Social Psychology of Education.” Change. Active learning: Lessons Teaching and Learning. and Technolo- Journal of Chemical Education. D. D. M. [57] Wilkerson. 2003. “Cooperative Learning Instructional Activities in a fects of Problem-Based Learning: A Meta-Analysis..A.. Lorenz.. Vol. K.” in Inventory for Fluid Mechanics”.A. 2001. W. Problem-Based Learning: A Re. 1998. D. K. [71] Smith. [41] Johnson. D. C. 2001.M. pp.W.. Controversy: The Power of Intellectual Conflict.. A. K.W. ABET “Professional Skills-Can they be Taught? Can they be Assessed?” pp.J. Y–Y. Garvin. 79–105. and Hafez. K... ing 67. ness School Press. R. “Bringing Problem-Based [78] Smith. 94. Vol. Stanne. San Francisco.R. [48] Johnson.T.E. In Good Company: How Social Capital 2000. search.K. L.Y. 1962.. M. Johnson. G. “Cooperative Learning: Making ‘Groupwork’ Learning to Higher Education: Theory and Practice.W.. Cooperation and Competition: [68] Michael. Vol.M.W. and Prusak.. 1994. 1984. L. and Johnson.: Prentice Hall.21–51. and Gijbels. K.W. NE: University of Nebraska Press.. D.: Holt. No.” Review of Educational Just-In-Time Teaching: Blending Active Learning with Web Technology. M. 2003. G.” Chemical En- ing and Technology: A Meta-Analysis. [50] Bowen. Vol.. p.. 129–152. Echt. Under- Learning Effects on High School and College Chemistry Achievement.. New York. “A Theory of Cooperation and Competition.. No. 1993. Johnson.J.. A.R.” Journal of Engineering Education. pp. [75] Smith.R. and Smith.. College Science Classrooms A Working Model for Helping the Learner to Learn. “Learning by Doing. 2nd ed. “The Nuts and Bolts of Cooperative Learning in En- search Perspective on Learning Interactions. “Problem-Based Learning: A tive Learning: Cooperation in the College Classroom.ncsu.. Cal. [56] Cohen. D. and Mitchell.. M. The Jigsaw Classroom.” graduate Education in Science. Minn: Interaction Book Company. Teach.: Wiley. E... [64] Darmofal.B.C... Edina... 1935. 1993. 223–246.

Carlson Award in recognition of Vol. modeling. His bachelor’s and master’s degrees are in metallurgical Problem Solving for the Computer Age. ures. London: Kogan Paul. Engineering Education (CAEE). 500 Pillsbury Drive SE. and Lindblad. “Web Based Forms for arship on Engineering Education. Dr. June 2001. K. K. Learn. 1994. Washington Center for Improving the Quality of IEEE. England: SRHE and Open University Press. Creating Significant Learning Experiences: An Integrat. [88] Johnson. Colorado School of Mines..A. 2nd ed.. problem formulation. Education. Evonne Schaeffer. 1998. sity of Washington.W.D. ing. Smith. and McTighe. Address: Civil Engineering. 2.: The Conference. The Challenge of Problem-Based learn. American Society for Engineering Education. He serves on the Foundation. Chester F. [100] Deming. “Designing and Teaching Courses to University. academic year. He is currently co-PI on two NSF-CTLs—Center for the Undergraduate Education. Government. Before 14 Journal of Engineering Education January 2005 . Mass: MIT Center for Advanced Engineering [83] Bridges. E. 1988. [84] Knowlton. Small Group Collabo.umn.. L. Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching Senior Scholar prin- [95] Duderstadt. V. D. G. pp.. The New Economics for Industry. she is an associate professor Information Technology and the New Competition in Higher Education. D. Center for Engineering and Technology Education (NCETE) and [91] Sheppard. 1998.: Burgess Press.A.. Minneapolis. ASEE Annual Conference. 6. E. Wash.A. 6. National education through contributions to the Frontiers in Education Learning Communities Project Monograph Series. tributions to Cooperative Learning Award.A. R. 1993. Schmitz Award for outstanding continued service to engineering ing Community Research and Assessment: What We Know Now.N. In addition. gration of Research. Understanding by Design. S.. 1997... Reinhold Stein.. Colo.. and Smith. Teaching and Learning. Cal.” in National Center for Re. and Bleloch.. M. telephone: (612) 625-0305.. Sheri Sheppard. Peer Assessment of Student Collaborative Processes in co-PI on a NSF-CCLI-ND—Rigorous Research in Engineering Undergraduate Engineering Education. of engineering education at Purdue University for the 2004-2005 [93] Schaeffer. R. and applied finite element analysis. Edina. Smith is Morse-Alumni Distinguished Teaching [85] Smith. He is editor-in-chief of the An- Design Team Peer Evaluations. MN at the Annual Meeting of the American Association of Higher Education As. Nash.ce. Minn.. Award Number 0206820. A.J. Olympia. San of mechanical engineering at Stanford University.. Minnesota. Karl has received numerous awards. “Teaching Thinking. ASEE Prism.H. 2003. and Feletti. Ronald [90] Taylor. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.E. 55455.D. Ph. Besides teaching Francisco.. No.. learning and design. Vol.. and Howard Uni- [98] Wiggins. In Press. American Association for Higher Educa- nities and Student Engagement.. R. 92. Instruction Through Cooperative Learning. Sheppard. No. and the National beck. 254–264. and Michalchik.edu. June 2004. A.S. J. is the Carnegie pp....” Research in Higher Education.. FAX: (612) 626-7750. Vol. Cal. J. Sheppard is co-principal investigator on a National Science Foun- [97] Fink. D.: ASCD.. C. [82] Boud. J. K. W.: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management. sion. and Sharp. nals of Research on Engineering Education. tion. Paper presented 236 Civil Engineering...” Proceedings. and Associates.. and Kuh.” New Directions for Teaching and Learning 95. in cooperation with the American Association Advancement of Engineering Education (CAEE) and National of Higher Education. 1–35.-M. and project and knowledge management and [86] Starfield. P. Moore. J. 2003. Learning in Leadership Development. e-mail: sessment Conference. Dancing With the Devil: (PPP) engineering study. 1999. ration in the Large Lecture Setting: Challenges for Assessment. Chen. Academy of Engineering’s Center for the Advancement of Schol- [92] Eschenbach. cipally responsible for the Preparations for the Professions Program formation Age?” n Katz. K. G.. eds. Facilitating Problem-Based Learning: Illuminat.. along with faculty at the Univer- 2002. Alexandria.edu/~smith [94] Cohen.W. edge engineering. Sheri D.D.” pp. “Building Models to Solve Professor and professor of civil engineering at the University of Problems.. Vol. fracture mechanics. 2003. Special Interest Group. and Brent. J. Implementing Problem Based Study. distinguished accomplishments in engineering education. Senior Scholar. URL: http:// www.. Ore. in Clarke. Cambridge. P. His research interests include the role of cooperation in Critical Thinking: Reports from Across the Curriculum. G. eds. A. American Society for Engineering Education. E. E.M.D. NSF Program 7431 CCLI— National Advisory Boards for the NSF-CLT Center for the Inte- ASA. J. and knowl- N. University of Minnesota. guished Service Award. “Maximizing Carlson Award for Innovation in Engineering Education... tion for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). Cooperative Learning [89] Zhao.. How to Model It: leadership. W. Ph. Outstanding Con- 7.: Prentice-Hall. engineering from Michigan Technological University and his 1994.: Jossey-Bass. is in educational psychology from the University of [87] Savin-Baden. Englewood Cliffs. In 1999 Sheri was named a fellow of the American Society Va. 1.. both undergraduate and graduate design-related classes at Stanford [96] Felder. “Restructuring the Classroom: Conditions for Pro- ductive Small Groups. “Can Colleges and Universities Survive in the In. versity. J. A. Educational Research and Methods Divi- 2003. MacGregor. 24–29. of Mechanical Engineering (ASME) and the American Associa- [99] McKeachie.. 1.M. awarded the ASEE Chester F.M. 1993. Johnson. Berkshire. San Francisco.. dation (NSF) grant to form the Center for the Advancement of ed Approach to Designing College Courses.” Journal of Engineering Education. Helen L.” pp. He is a visiting professor 1998...A.T. Stanford Center for Innovations in Learning. and Mesmer. ksmith@umn. and in 2004 was search for the Improvement of Postsecondary Teaching and Learning Update. W. and Hallinger..: Jossey-Bass. American Society for Engineering Education. “Adding Value: Learning Commu.M..E. Denver. Final Report to National Science Education: Cultivating a Community of Practice. and Starfield. Eugene. Karl A. and Biddle.J.. she conducts research on weld fatigue and impact fail- Satisfy the ABET Engineering Criteria. ERM Division of ASEE and Education Society of Evergreen State College. 1995. 7–25.D. including Distin- ing Perspectives. R..” Review of Educational Research. fellow. D. M. “Problem-Based Learning in the AUTHOR’S BIOGRAPHIES Information Age. Teaching Minnesota.

conflict resolution. ized (science) schools. the Helen Plants Award from the American Society for clude the following. January 2005 Journal of Engineering Education 15 . Sheppard’s graduate work was done at the University of vides training for clients in North America. including senior research engineer at Ford group skills training. nongraded situations. and many others.D from the University of California in Berkeley. open than 350 research articles and book chapters and is the author of schools.A. cottage schools. providing companies with structural analysis ex. He is co-director University of Minnesota. team cooperative environment. Europe. drug abuse prevention. ing Professor. ethnic relations. University. Johnson is a professor of educational psychology at Roger T. Johnson is a professor in the Department of Curricu- the University of Minnesota where he holds the Emma M. Central America. she held several positions in the au. Reaching Out: Interpersonal eral national awards. and evaluating attitu- Motor Company’s Scientific Research Lab. She also worked as a dinal/affective outcomes of educational and training programs. He is the co-director of the Cooperative Learning Center. Joining Together: Group Theory ies Education presented by the National Council for the Social and Group Skills. doctoral degree from Columbia University. the Gordon Allport Intergroup Relations Award In Personnel And Guidance from the American Personnel Award from the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues and Guidance Association and in 1981 he received the Gordon All. Some of his national awards in. David W. lum and Instruction with an emphasis in science education at the Birkmaier Professorship in Educational Leadership. Visit. In 1972 he received a National Research Engineering Education. He holds an M. building. Johnson). Learning. including the Research Award in Social Stud- Effectiveness and Self-Actualization. He has published more garten through eighth grade in self-contained classrooms. He received a master’s and a versity and an Ed. Roger Johnson has been the recipient of sev- ing The Social Psychology of Education. the port Award for outstanding research on intergroup relationships Alumni of the year award from Teachers College. University of Maine at Presque Isle. includ. interpersonal and tomotive industry. from Ball State Uni- of the Cooperative Learning Center. and departmental- more than forty books (most co-authored with R. He is a past-editor of His public school teaching experience includes teaching in kinder- the American Educational Research Journal.coming to Stanford University. and the Pacific Region. Asia. Ball State from Division Nine of the American Psychological Association. University of tional Research Association Special Interest Group on Cooperative Minnesota. the Middle East. and the Outstanding Contribution to Research and Prac- The Emma M. In 1996-1997 he was the Libra Endowed Chair. Dr. For the past which conducts research and training nationally and internationally thirty-five years David has served as an organizational consultant to on changing the structure of classrooms and schools to a more schools and businesses in such areas as management training. (Division 9 of the American Psychological Association). is a recognized authority on experiential learning and currently pro- pertise. Michigan (1985). Studies. Birkmaier Professorship in Educational Leadership tice in Cooperative Learning Award from the American Educa- (1994–1997) awarded by the College of Education. He design consultant.