Q: why is HigherEd 2.0 the killer app for modern education?1. anytime, anyplace learning2. asynchronous learning networks3. student-generated content and peer review
Ed BergerMechanical & Aerospace EngineeringUniversity of [email protected]
Chuck KrousgrillSchool of Mechanical EngineeringPurdue [email protected]
HigherEd 2.0: Engineering Education Using Web 2.0 Technologies
MAE 230 - Statics (UVa)http://pages.shanti.virginia.edu/statics2010/Fall 2010 enrollment: 110 students
ME 270 - Statics (Purdue)http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~krousgri/me270/Spring 2010 enrollment: 600 students (five divisions)Used by both MAE 230 and ME 270 students during Spring 2010 semester
2
HigherEd 2.0 Course Blogs
MAE 231 - Strength of Matls (UVa)http://pages.shanti.virginia.edu/som2010/Spring 2010 enrollment: 60 students
ME 274 - Dynamics (Purdue)http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~krousgri/me274/Fall 2010 enrollment: 120 students (one division)
ME 375 - System Dynamics/Modeling (Purdue)http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~krousgri/me375/Fall 2010 enrollment: 110 students (two divisions)Used for distance offering in China during Spring 2010 semester
For all five courses: • three, 50-min lectures per week (MWF)• blogs open for everyone to view (login required to post)• WordPress blog application
✦ digital media course content is replayable, archivable, searchable, portable, visual, animated, and concise
✦ this is particularly important for engineering disciplines which are very visual, often include motion and deformation, equation derivations, and other materials which are well served through repetition
• Why do it?
✦ because we can, we should, and we must
✦ modern engineering students are digital natives, benefit from collaborative and interactive learning, and multi-task via digital devices (cell phone, iPod, laptop)
✦ the full breadth of engineering disciplines can benefit from technology-driven extensions to “static” content
• students are empowered to control their educational environment like never before, specifically by:
✦ controlling what learning products they access, consume, replay, discard, etc.
✦ choosing when, where, and how often to consume those materials
✦ developing their own learning materials for peer-2-peer sharing and collaborative educational support
✦ exploiting tightly hyperlinked materials and exercising choice in the materials they consume and the perspectives those learning materials represent
✦ repeating explanations of material which resonate with them, and ignoring those that don’t
✦ collaborating to develop their own highly condensed, authoritative representations of the course materials (i.e., wikis and mash-ups)
• our hypothesis: the democratizing impact of web 2.0 technologies on higher education is that the collective intelligence of a student cohort increases as we foster their collaborations (i.e., the average performance improves as we enhance flexible student interactions)
• the HigherEd 2.0 paradigm has been funded by NSF (DUE-0717820)
✦ $500k, 9/15/07-8/31/10
✦ four partner institutions (UVa, Purdue, Univ. of Akron, Smith College)
✦ focus on engineering mechanics (sophomore)
✦ partnership with Curry on outcomes assessment (Garofalo, Heinecke)
✦ campus support: ITC, TRC, upper admin
✦ industry partners: Apple and Prentice Hall
• we are already expanding the program to non-engineering disciplines using funds from various other sources
• first workshop: Nov. 2007 training workshop for faculty technology transfer (40 attendees representing dozens of disciplines), supported by VP/CIO office and Apple
• web 2.0 technologies permeate the lives of young people (“digital natives”) today like never before
• we wish to integrate educational content into the digital formats, delivery mechanisms, and user-empowering structures so common in everyday online life
• while doing this, we can enable a new version of pedagogy--this is a case of using technology to support specific learning outcomes better than we can without using technology
• but it is not a case of technology leading the pedagogical direction...we are not simply trying all the new bells and whistles inside software to see what students like (technology ≠ content)
• the overall integration of the entire suite of HigherEd 2.0 tools effects an environmental transformation of the classroom (pedagogy + student collaboration + information distribution + ...)
• distance learning course: asynchronous interactions, any-time & anywhere, virtual groups (start a student cohort at a specific time), fits into work schedule (ex.: undergraduate online degree programs)
• independent study: asynchronous, re-usable (start a new student any time), rich media content supports learning through examples and narrated content (ex.: student knowledge exchange)
• asynchronous training: video and other media enrichment, to support or replace live training (ex.: HR policies and procedures, safety training, etc.)
• knowledge archiving and retention: user-searchable knowledge base, training new employees, retaining knowledge of retirees, social networking of users, user-driven content authoring
• face-2-face, peer-2-peer: of course, this all supports more traditional modes of instruction
Co-teaching statics course at UVA and Purdue✦ Fall 2009✦ common textbook/syllabus/homeworks/exams✦ share course blog and HigherEd 2.0 resources: inter-
Co-teaching statics course at UVA and Purdue✦ Fall 2009✦ common textbook/syllabus/homeworks/exams✦ share course blog and HigherEd 2.0 resources: inter-
university community of learning
Course Blog
SGC
Videos Hwk
Exams
Lectures
Purdue systems dynamics course offered in China✦ Spring 2010, 2011✦ Shanghai Jiao Tong University✦ study-abroad cohort from Purdue and local SJTU students
working with Purdue WL students ✦ share course blog and HigherEd 2.0 resources: global
