Content uploaded by Hants Kipper
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Hants Kipper on Feb 15, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
PAPER
RETHINKING EFFECTIVE TEACHING AND LEARNING FOR THE DESIGN OF EFFICIENT CURRICULUM FOR TECHNICAL TEACHERS
Rethinking Effective Teaching and Learning
for the Design of Efficient Curriculum for
Technical Teachers
http://dx.doi.org/10.3991/ijep.v3i1.2404
T. Rüütmann and H. Kipper
Tallinn University of Technology, Tallinn, Estonia
Abstract—Technical teachers need to possess skills in at
least two distinct areas: engineering discipline and the art of
teaching, balancing these two areas, knowing in-action how
to do it in real-life situations and for real professional pur-
poses. Understanding student individualities and their
different learning styles is one of the midpoints of teacher
training. The newly designed curriculum for technical
teachers makes scientifically-founded and practice-oriented
teacher training possible. The aim of the study programme
described is to abolish mismatches between common learn-
ing styles and traditional teaching styles. The implementa-
tion of the designed curriculum concentrates on interactive
lectures and inductive teaching model. Contemporary
teaching models and strategies motivate students to learn
more effectively, providing future technical teachers with
teaching techniques which address all learning styles.
Index Terms—Curriculum design, effective teaching, engi-
neering pedagogy, learning styles, teaching models.
I. INTRODUCTION
Engineering education is a large system and it is almost
impossible to predict its behaviour over far too distant
future since the system parameters show a high rate of
change. The knowledge is changing so fast that we cannot
give students what they will need to know tomorrow.
Instead, we should be helping them to develop their learn-
ing skills, so that they will be able to learn whatever they
need to. If we can achieve that, we will have world-class
engineers, comprising people who are innovative and
resourceful.
Teaching has only one purpose, and that is to facilitate
learning. Learning can occur without teaching at any loss
to anyone, but teaching can, and unfortunately often does
occur without learning. For our own sake as well as our
students’, we should make teaching and learning synony-
mous sides of the same coin.
Students want more real-life gumption and more initia-
tive in learning engineering. The possibility of technical
teachers is to help students to become better learners – not
just in the sense of getting better qualifications, but in
real-life terms, developing the set of ideas about what
“learning to learn” involves, and how it can be taught.
This doesn’t mean that we no longer care about the con-
tent of the curriculum - content is and will be the stem of
the curriculum.
While designing the curriculum across subjects and
years, we should take account of could we provide cumu-
lative, comprehensive mental exercises that will serve all
types of students and what methodology we use in teach-
ing engineering effectively. We must help students de-
velop confidence to ask questions and think critically, thus
becoming more confident, curious and capable learners.
The present paper will discuss the design of efficient
curriculum for technical teachers providing effective
teaching and learning.
II. CURRICULUM FOR TECHNICAL TEACHERS
A. Design of the Curriculum
The curriculum for technical teachers on Master level
has been completed in 2012 at Estonian Centre for Engi-
neering Pedagogy (ECEP) at Tallinn University of Tech-
nology (TUT). General trends in curriculum design have
been used in the design of the curriculum [1]. Methodol-
ogy for the curriculum design started with decisions on
overall goals, learning objectives and intended learning
outcomes. The curriculum was designed according to the
following model: Establish Qualification Profile, Establish
Admission Quality, Define Course Content, Establish the
Curriculum at Macro Level, Establish the Curriculum at
Micro Level, Integrate the Curriculum within the Univer-
sity System [1]. The Curriculum design process is a com-
plex activity: each stage involves an iterative procedure,
the output of which is evaluated before being used as a
part of the input to the next stage.
A curriculum of modern technical teachers should make
scientifically-founded and practice-oriented teacher train-
ing possible, so that teachers can expect to build a deeper
understanding of the principles, problems and solutions
associated with teaching learners in technical institutions.
They should also gain greater confidence in their own
skills and abilities through the use of an extended range of
contemporary tools, techniques and activities.
Specific teaching and learning strategies will be re-
quired if the objectives are to be successfully obtained,
and this requires an understanding of the complexity of
learning. In the process of the curriculum and syllabi
design the following principles have been taken account
of:
How could teaching help students to learn effec-
tively? How can we teach students to employ effec-
tive learning strategies?
How contemporary teaching methods could be used
in teaching engineering? Students, future technical
teachers should experience contemporary teaching
44
http://www.i-jep.org
PAPER
RETHINKING EFFECTIVE TEACHING AND LEARNING FOR THE DESIGN OF EFFICIENT CURRICULUM FOR TECHNICAL TEACHERS
methods and models, and analyse their own learning
relevantly.
Students’ differences should be taken account of in
teaching engineering. How much students learn is de-
termined by the match between their learning style
and instructor’s teaching style. To maximise student
learning, we have to work with our teaching style,
methods and models.
Technical teachers must teach students to ask ques-
tions and think critically in the context of the relevant
field of engineering and engineering pedagogy.
B. Sructure of the Designed Curriculum
The newly designed curriculum provides education in
Engineering Pedagogy for technical teachers on Master
level – technical teachers in the amount of 120 ECTS
(European Credit Transfer System) credits. The curricu-
lum is based on International Society for Engineering
Education (IGIP) Recommendations for Studies in Engi-
neering Pedagogy Science. The proven IGIP engineering
education curriculum is based on the knowledge of tradi-
tional pedagogy in philosophy and the liberal arts but
respects the particular character of the technician and the
analytical-methodological approach in the fields of engi-
neering science.
Students with at least Bachelor degree in engineering
speciality will be admitted to the pilot programme from
September 2013. The aim of the curriculum is to give
scientifically based, consistent education to persons al-
ready possessing Bachelor degree in engineering or re-
spondent education, to enable them to teach engineering
competently, effectively and creatively at vocational
schools, gymnasiums, colleges or universities; to design
an idiosyncratic system of teaching for technical teachers,
taking into consideration the basics of Educational Psy-
chology and Engineering Pedagogy Science in the study
process of teaching theory and practice.
According to chosen educational level, acquired educa-
tion affords prerequisites for a work as:
Technical teacher at upper secondary level (gymna-
sium) teaching optional technology courses or phys-
ics, mathematics or chemistry.
Technical teacher at vocational schools, teaching
engineering speciality subjects.
Engineering educator at the level of higher education.
Students may choose between 8 specialisations depend-
ing on their acquired engineering education:
Civil Engineering.
Power Engineering.
Geological Technology.
Information and Communication Technology.
Chemical and Material Technology.
Logistics.
Mechanical Engineering.
Technical Physics and Mathematics.
The structure of the designed curriculum is presented in
Table 1. As it could be seen the amount of the curriculum
is 120 ECTS credits, the nominal study period is 2 years.
Education is completed by defending Master Thesis or
by passing the final Master Degree Examination. The final
examination consists of the presentation and discussion of
the candidate’s portfolio, presentation of a micro-lesson
and an examination interview. Students who have fulfilled
the curriculum and passed the final examination are
awarded a degree of Master of Arts in Education (MA),
and may apply for a qualification of an international
engineering educator from IGIP.
TABLE I. STRUCTURE OF THE CURRICULUM
Model/Subjects ECTS
credits
Basic Studies 30 ECTS
Compulsory Subjects: Research in Education; Cognition
and Action; Educational Psychology; Foundational
Education; Pedagogical Communication 30
General Studies 25 ECTS
Compulsory Subjects: Teaching Technology, Media and
E-Learning; Working with Projects: Curriculum Design:
Laboratory Didactics and Methodology; Ethics and
Multicultural Learning Environment; Human Commu-
nication and Academic Writing for Technical Teachers;
Engineering Pedagogy Science in Theory and Practice
23
Optional Subjects: Product Development and Innova-
tion; Standards and Quality; Information Technology;
Academic Foreign Language 3
Core Studies 12 ECTS
Optional courses in Methodology and Didactics accord-
ing to the chosen school level 12
Teaching Training Practice 15 ECTS
Engineering Speciality Optional Studies in chosen engineering
specialisation 12 ECTS
Optional Free Subjects 6 ECTS
Master Thesis or Master Degree Examination 20 ECTS
The curriculum for technical teachers at ECEP has been
concentrating on interactive lectures and inductive teach-
ing methods. Different active methods, suitable for teach-
ing engineering, are taught in interactive lectures, mainly
in the subject of the Engineering Pedagogy Science in
Theory and Practice. These methods motivate students to
learn more effectively, providing teaching techniques
which address all learning styles.
III. ANALYSIS OF EFFECTIVE TEACHING AND
LEARNING
A. The Complex of Effective Teaching and Learning
Technical teachers have to be competent in the relevant
field of engineering and subject they teach. But they also
need to know how to teach effectively, the core knowl-
edge is to know in-action how to do it in real-life situa-
tions and for real professional purposes.
There are four teaching-learning scenarios in teaching
engineering [2]:
Teaching is ineffective, students are ineffective, and
leaning is therefore minimal. In this case teacher
gives students just an outline material and students
study it by rehearsing facts. With the combination of
weak teaching and weak learning skills students learn
a little.
Teaching is effective, students are ineffective learn-
ers, and learning is good. Teacher provides a frame-
work for selecting and noting key-points, a chart for
iJEP – Volume 3, Issue 1, January 2013
45
PAPER
RETHINKING EFFECTIVE TEACHING AND LEARNING FOR THE DESIGN OF EFFICIENT CURRICULUM FOR TECHNICAL TEACHERS
organising selected points, a list of important associa-
tions and practice questions to foster regulation. Al-
though students do not know how to apply effective
learning strategies on their own, instruction is so
good that it compensates for students’ weak learning.
Good teaching triumphs over weak learning. Stu-
dents soar for success in spite of their poor learning
skills.
Teaching is ineffective, students are effective learn-
ers, and learning is good. Teacher gives students just
an outline of the material. Students take copious
notes, convert the outline to a chart, generate associa-
tions, and test themselves over the facts and relation-
ships inherent in the material. Learning strategies are
so good that they compensate for ineffective teach-
ing. Good learning triumphs over weak teaching.
Students soar for success in spite of ineffective teach-
ing.
Teaching is effective, students are effective learners.
Learning is maximal. With the best of both worlds,
students soar to success and beyond.
Teaching and learning both can be effective or ineffec-
tive. Teachers often teach engineering in ways that limit
learning [2] and students employ weak and unproductive
learning strategies. Teaching and learning system is bro-
ken, because teachers are not taught to present material in
ways that help students and take account of their learning
style. Teachers are not taught how to design instruction
that ensures learning, how to teach for deep understand-
ing. Teachers often teach the way they remember their
teachers have taught them.
Many students, on the contrary, do not know how to
learn. They have spent half of their waking hours at
school, but they were never taught how to learn effec-
tively taking account of their learning style, how to take a
quality set of notes, manage time, foster motivation,
organise notes or create associations. Teachers usually
focus on the product of learning and ignore the process,
consequently, students learn some content but there is no
deep understanding.
Since the final destination of teaching is student learn-
ing, there are two ways to improve learning by:
Improving teaching – helping teachers present their
material so effectively that students learn in spite of
their weak learning strategies. In this case student
learning depends on teacher effectiveness.
Helping students to acquire effective learning strate-
gies, so they can learn even when teaching is ineffec-
tive.
It is possible for teachers to take both roads simultane-
ously: teach effectively and teach students how to learn.
First teachers should present material in a way that stu-
dents cannot help but learn – helping students to select key
ideas and concepts, organise them, show connections,
create associations, think critically in front of the class and
regulate learning – and they should teach students how to
do it on their own. In order for students to learn how to
learn, they need practice applying strategies to real
coursework. Teachers can help students to select by
providing notes, frameworks and cues, encouraging re-
construction.
Learning strategies are learned best when embedded
into content teaching, using four simple steps [2]:
Introduce the strategy by modelling and describing it.
Sell the strategy by telling why it works.
Generalise the strategy by telling where else it is
helpful.
Perfect the strategy by providing practice opportuni-
ties.
The key to memorizing and problem solving is organi-
sation. Usually students learn one idea at a time. Informa-
tion in engineering education is often presented to students
in blocks of texts, in outlines, in lists, in bite-size pieces –
thus hiding symbiotic relationships, the completed puzzle,
the structure, similarities and differences.
Representations (illustrations, matrices, sequences, hi-
erarchy, etc) should be used to improve teaching and
helping students organise information.
Learning depends on selecting important material and
organising it, but teachers should also associate presented
information by providing examples and non-examples,
and raising association questions (How are these thing
alike/different? What is the association between structure
and function? What common categories cut across the
topic? What do we know about this? Why? What if?).
For deep understanding students must select, organise,
and associate information, but they should also regulate by
monitoring and assessing learning. Teachers can help
students by providing objectives, rubrics, timelines and
practice test, but also conduct error tests [3].
In teaching engineering there is also a tendency to ask
questions as though they are rice thrown at a wedding.
Throwing out lots of questions makes the teacher feel
good. These questions often do little to support deep
understanding but the answers that come back make it feel
productive. Carefully focused questions, in the other hand,
make all the difference. Focused questions are aimed at a
particular target. The target is determined by the stage of
the instruction and the nature of understanding to be
supported. There must be relevant, accessible prior
knowledge or it must be provided or constructed; the
relationships must be known or capable of construction;
the relevant and irrelevant must be discriminated and a
need to inference has to be recognised. The target is likely
to be pre-requisite knowledge. Questions, therefore, are
aimed at stimulating recall of pre-requisites and practising
it. They also serve to indicate where prior knowledge is
deficient and needs to be improved. The nature of the
question matches the immediate goal of instruction.
Teachers often ask mainly factual questions, regardless of
the goal [3].
Effective teachers phrase questions clearly, avoid run-
on questions, and specify the conditions for the response.
They probe for clarification and encourage students to
critical thinking. Although responses are acknowledged,
praise is used with discretion. Many questions require rote
memory for a correct response. Perhaps, because ques-
tions that require recitation of facts take less time, teachers
sometimes avoid asking higher-level questions.
Merely asking questions does not cause students to
think. But higher-level question invite and encourage
higher levels of critical thinking in students. Furthermore,
it appears that if teachers systematically raise the level of
their questioning, students raise level of their responses
correspondingly. This requires a carefully planned ques-
tioning strategy. Through appropriate questioning student
46
http://www.i-jep.org
PAPER
RETHINKING EFFECTIVE TEACHING AND LEARNING FOR THE DESIGN OF EFFICIENT CURRICULUM FOR TECHNICAL TEACHERS
curiosity is fostered. Curiosity is affective dimension of
learning and it deals with motivation [3].
Questioning is a primary tool in teaching engineering
for leading students into higher order thinking. Students
should be asked more how, why, or what do you suppose
questions, not only what questions. Knowledge requires
memory only, repeating information exactly memorised –
the what. Comprehension, however, calls for rephrasing,
rewording and comparing information. Application re-
quires the learner to apply knowledge and understanding
to determine an appropriate, correct answer. Analysis asks
students to identify motives or causes, draw conclusions
and determine evidence. Synthesis leads students to make
predictions, produce original communications, or solve
problems. Evaluation causes students to make judgements,
offer and support opinions.
Through a cleverly planned questioning strategy, a
technical teacher can creatively lead students through the
cognitive taxonomy of thinking. Carefully devised ques-
tions facilitate the observation, communication, compari-
son, ordering, categorisation, relating, inferring from, and
application of information. Beginning with what or the
recall questions, in teaching engineering a teacher should
lead from the knowledge base into understanding and
from understanding into practical application, from appli-
cation into a more careful analysis, and after analysis into
a synthesis or a reassembling of the notion in a new and
different way. This entire process can then be assessed
and judged as having merit, quality, or worth, teaching
students to evaluate all ideas on a consistent set of criteria.
Technical teachers could promote observation by di-
recting students like “tell us what you see” or “list the
properties that are apparent in the sample”, by asking
questions like: “What are the dominant characteristics of
this subject?”, “What is the object’s size and shape?” For
comparing information, the scientific thought process that
deals with similarities and differences, technical teacher
should lead the analytic questioning: “How are these
alike?”, “How are these different?”, “Which comes first,
second, third?”, “On what basis would you group these
ideas or objects?”, “What is a different way in which these
characteristics can be clustered?”. Following analytic
questions, synthesis questions should be asked: “Use the
information you have learned to design something new”.
The final element of reason and thought would be leading
students into evaluation by asking for example “Which
experimental design was the best? Why?” Related to
evaluation is the process of inferring, concluding and
deciding. This is the scientific thinking process that deals
with ideas remote in time and space: “What can be in-
ferred from this information?”, “Predict the outcome and
give evidence to support your prediction”, “Under what
conditions might we extrapolate from this observed in-
formation and believe that a similar reaction could occur
under a different circumstance?”.
Schools have typically neglected teaching for thinking,
and transfer thinking operations from one subject to
another and to real life. Emphasis has been on information
acquisition and low-level content. Students need to do
more than learn information. Thinking skills and proc-
esses need to be learned, as does the ability to use these in
a variety of contexts. If teaching and learning are to be
authentic, teachers need to teach for thinking. One of
powerful strategies for teaching for critical thinking and
deep understanding is questioning.
B. Deductive and Inductive Teaching Model
The dominant teaching model in engineering is deduc-
tive, where a teacher takes full control of the transmission
of knowledge – this model regards a teacher as an expert
and students as a group of novices. The process of learn-
ing, thinking, and doing sends a powerful message that
students receive as information about how engineers
work. Having no other experience, they take the class-
room to represent profession. Numerous textbook prob-
lems they have to solve do not sufficiently challenge
students to move to a deeper level understanding and skill
of analysis that helps towards critical thinking. Exams
generally assess students’ skill in using engineering tools
and students are expected to show technical skill in apply-
ing mathematical formula to a given problem. Learning to
use concepts to analyse real-world problems is an impor-
tant goal in teaching engineering, but students have very
little opportunity to develop these skills today.
Inductive teaching is one way to help students learn to
use the fundamental concepts for problem solving –
teacher focuses on cases that students could work on to
help them develop an understanding of the phenomenon
that these cases represent before a principle is introduced
[4].
A teacher might begin with a problem, such as how to
hold a 2 kg weight using a piece of paper and paper clips
and ask the students to figure out the fundamental ele-
ments which are critical to the problem. Based on their
knowledge and experience, students attempt to explore
possible cases, developing a sense of awareness of the
relevant key elements – load, stress and strength. They
begin their concept-formation based on the phenomenon
observed. Teacher introduces new cases and along with
students identifies their fundamental elements, using
formulas, equations, graphs or diagrams as tools in help-
ing students refine their concept formation.
We should recognize that students learn best when they
perceive a need to know the material being taught. We
recommend to start with realistic complex problems, let
students establish what they know and what they need to
find out, and then guide them in finding it out by provid-
ing a combination of resources (which may include inter-
active mini-lectures and integrated hands-on or simulated
experiments) and guidance on performing library and
Internet research. This is inductive teaching and has a
number of variations, including problem-based learning,
project-based learning, guided inquiry, discovery learning,
and just-in-time teaching [4].
According to Prince and Felder [4] the Inductive Model
is an umbrella term that encompasses a range of instruc-
tional methods, including inquiry learning, problem-based
learning, project-based learning, case-based teaching,
discovery learning, and just-in-time teaching. These
methods have many features in common, besides the fact
that they all qualify as inductive. They are all learner-
centred they impose more responsibility on students for
their own learning than the traditional lecture-based de-
ductive approach does. They are all supported by research
findings that students learn by fitting new information into
existing cognitive structures. The methods almost always
involve students discussing questions and solving prob-
lems in class with lot of collaborative or cooperative
learning.
iJEP – Volume 3, Issue 1, January 2013
47
PAPER
RETHINKING EFFECTIVE TEACHING AND LEARNING FOR THE DESIGN OF EFFICIENT CURRICULUM FOR TECHNICAL TEACHERS
The Inductive Model is designed to help students reach
two types of learning objectives:
For students to acquire deep and thorough under-
standing of specific and well-defined topics.
To develop students’ critical thinking abilities. Stu-
dents try to find patterns in the new information and
with the teacher’s guidance they construct a thorough
understanding of the topics and learn to make and as-
sess conclusions based on evidence.
Differences between these two described models are:
teacher’s early introduction of context, thus encouraging
students to think in real terms and potential of students to
be more reflective about their own learning, as the learn-
ing experience becomes more iterative and less linear.
Although the inductive model can be messy and challeng-
ing, its impact on student learning can be enormous.
C. Teaching and Learning Styles
Learning styles are characteristic cognitive, affective,
and psychological behaviours that serve as relatively
stable indicators of how learners perceive, interact with,
and respond to the learning environment. Students learn
best when instruction and learning context match their
learning style.
Understanding students’ different learning styles is one
of the midpoints of technical teacher training. The aim of
the designed curriculum for technical teachers is to abolish
mismatches between students’ common learning styles
and traditional teaching styles of technical teachers and
make teaching in engineering more effective, to equip
technical teachers with the skills associated with every
learning style category, regardless of the students’ per-
sonal preferences, since they will need all of those skills to
function effectively as professionals.
Technical teachers should attempt to improve the qual-
ity and efficiency of their teaching, which in turn requires
understanding the learning styles of engineering students
and designing instruction to meet them. The problem is
that two students are never alike. They have different
backgrounds, strengths and weaknesses, interests, ambi-
tions, senses of responsibility, levels of motivation, and
approaches to studying.
According to Richard M. Felder [5] students learn in
many ways – by seeing and hearing; reflecting and acting;
reasoning logically and intuitively; memorising and visu-
alising; drawing analogies and building mathematical
models. Teachers’ teaching methods also vary. Some
teachers lecture, others demonstrate and discuss; some
focus on principles and others on applications; some
emphasise memory and other understanding. How much a
student learns in a class is governed by student’s ability
and prior preparation, but also by compatibility of stu-
dent’s learning style and the teacher’s teaching style.
At ECEP teaching methodology and models of de-
signed curriculum for technical teachers are based on
Felder-Silverman learning and teaching style model for
engineering education [5]. The future technical teachers
get acquainted with following different learning styles of
engineering students: sensing/intuitive learners (sensing
learners like facts, data, and experimentation; intuitive
students prefer principles and theories); visual/auditory
learners (visual learners prefer sights, pictures, diagrams,
symbols; auditory learners – sounds and words); induc-
tive/deductive learners – induction is a reasoning progres-
sion from particulars (observations, measurements, data)
to generalities (governing rules, laws, theories); deduction
proceeds in the opposite direction; active/reflective learn-
ers (active experimentation involves doing something
with the information: discussing it or explaining or testing;
reflective observation involves examining and manipulat-
ing the information introspectively); sequential/global
learners (sequential learners learn in a logically ordered
progression, global learners learn in fits and starts: they
may be lost for days or weeks, until suddenly they “get
it”).
According to Richard M. Felder [6] an engineering stu-
dent’s learning style may be defined by the following
methodology, answering to five questions:
What type of information does the student preferen-
tially perceive: sensory (external) –sights, sounds,
physical sensations, or intuitive (internal) – possibili-
ties, insights, hunches?
Through which sensory channel is external informa-
tion most effectively perceived: visual – pictures,
diagrams, graphs, demonstrations, or auditory –
words, sounds?
With which organization of information is the student
most comfortable: inductive –facts and observations
are given, underlying principles are inferred; or de-
ductive –principles are given, consequences and ap-
plications are deduced?
How does the student prefer to process information:
actively – through engagement in physical activity or
discussion, or reflectively – through introspection?
How does the student progress toward understanding:
sequentially – in continual steps, or globally – in
large jumps, holistically?
Mismatches exist today between common learning
styles of engineering students and traditional teaching
styles of engineering professors. Most engineering stu-
dents are visual, sensing, inductive, and active, and some
of the most creative students are global, but most engi-
neering education is auditory, abstract (intuitive), deduc-
tive, passive, and sequential. In consequence students
become bored and inattentive, do poorly tests, get dis-
couraged, and in some cases change to other curricula or
drop out of school [8].
Analysis of the students’ learning styles at ECEP has
been carried out according to above introduced methodol-
ogy created by Richard Felder [8]. As the result of the
analysis, the future technical teachers, students studying at
ECEP, were classified as follows: of the analysed 68
students, 61% were classified as active learners, 39% were
classified as reflective learners, 64% were sensing learn-
ers, 30% were intuitive learners, 87% were visual learners,
15% were verbal learners, 55% were sequential learners
and 34% were global learners [9].
As the results of the analysis present, 64% of students
were sensors, while traditional engineering instruction is
usually oriented toward intuitive learning, emphasizing
theory and mathematical modelling. 87% of the students
were visual learners, but most of engineering instruction is
overwhelmingly verbal, emphasizing written explanations
and mathematical formulations of physical phenomena.
61% of the students were active, while most engineering
courses other than laboratories rely on lectures as the
48
http://www.i-jep.org
PAPER
RETHINKING EFFECTIVE TEACHING AND LEARNING FOR THE DESIGN OF EFFICIENT CURRICULUM FOR TECHNICAL TEACHERS
principal method for transmitting information. 55% of the
students classified themselves as sequential learners and
as traditional engineering education is heavily sequential,
relevantly there is no mismatch between students’ learning
style and instructors’ teaching style in this case. 34% of
students were global learners. According to Richard
Felder [8] global learners are multidisciplinary thinkers
with broad vision. Unfortunately, traditional engineering
education is sequential and does little to provide students
with global learning style to meet their needs.
As it could be seen from the results of the analysis, in
engineering education there is a great mismatch between
students’ learning styles and instructors’ teaching meth-
ods. Thus it is of high importance for technical teachers to
make instruction more effective to abolish these mis-
matches, and taking account of them.
At ECEP students attending the designed curriculum
are taught how in their future profession as technical
teachers it is possible to help their students to learn more
effectively. Accordingly to Felder’s methodology [7]
active learners should try to study in a group in which the
members take turns explaining different topics to each
other. They will always retain information better if they
could find ways to do something with it. Reflective learn-
ers in turn should not simply read or memorize the mate-
rial, but stop periodically, review what they have read and
think of possible questions or applications. Reflective
learners might find it helpful to write short summaries of
readings or class notes in their own words. Sensing learn-
ers remember and understand information best if they can
see how it connects to the real world – they should ask
their instructor for specific examples of concepts and
procedures, and find out how the concepts apply in prac-
tice. Intuitive learners should ask their instructor for
interpretations or theories that link the facts, or try to find
the connections themselves. Visual learners should try to
find diagrams, sketches, schematics, photographs, flow
charts, or any other visual representation of the course
material that is predominantly verbal, prepare a concept
map by listing key points, and colour-code notes. Sequen-
tial learners should outline the lecture material in logical
order. Global learners need the big picture of a subject –
they should skim through the entire chapter to get an
overview and thus study more effectively.
Although the diverse styles with which students learn
are numerous, the inclusion of a relatively small number
of techniques as an instructor’s teaching tools should be
sufficient to meet the needs of most or all of the students
in any engineering class. The techniques and suggestions
presented below should serve this purpose in any case.
The following recommended teaching techniques by
Richard Felder [8] suitable for engineering education to
address all learning styles serve as the basis of instruction
at ECEP to future technical teachers:
Motivate learning. As much as possible, relate the
material being presented to what has come before
and what will to come in the same course, to material
in other courses, and particularly to the students’ per-
sonal experience (inductive/global).
Provide a balance of concrete information (facts,
data, real or hypothetical experiments and their re-
sults) (sensing) and abstract concepts (principles,
theories, mathematical models) (intuitive).
Balance material that emphasizes practical problem-
solving methods (sensing/active) with material that
emphasizes fundamental understanding (intui-
tive/reflective).
Provide explicit illustrations of intuitive patterns
(logical inference, pattern recognition, generaliza-
tion) and sensing patterns (observation of surround-
ings, empirical experimentation, attention to detail),
and encourage all students to exercise both patterns
(sensing/intuitive).
Follow the scientific method in presenting theoretical
material. Provide concrete examples of the phenom-
ena the theory describes or predicts (sensing/ induc-
tive); then develop the theory or formulate the mod
(intuitive/inductive/ sequential); show how the theory
or mod can be validated and deduce its consequences
(deductive/sequential); and present applications
(sensing/deductive/sequential).
Use pictures, schematics, graphs, and simple sketches
liberally before, during, and after the presentation of
verbal material (sensing/visual). Show films (sens-
ing/visual.) Provide demonstrations (sensing/visual),
hands-on, if possible (active).
Use computer-assisted instruction – sensors respond
very well to it (sensing/active).
Do not fill every minute of class time lecturing and
writing on the board. Provide intervals – however
brief – for students to think about what they have
been told (reflective).
Provide opportunities for students to do something
active besides transcribing notes. Small-group activi-
ties that take no more than five minutes are extremely
effective for this purpose (active).
Assign some drill exercises to provide practice in the
basic methods being taught (sens-
ing/active/sequential) but do not overdo them (intui-
tive/reflective/ global). Also provide some open-
ended problems, questions and exercises that call for
analysis and synthesis (intuitive/reflective/global).
Give students the option of cooperating on home-
work assignments to the greatest possible extent (ac-
tive). Active learners generally learn best when they
interact with others; if they are denied the opportu-
nity to do so they are being deprived of their most ef-
fective learning tool.
Applaud creative solutions, even incorrect ones (in-
tuitive/global).
Talk to students about learning styles, both in advis-
ing and in classes. Students are reassured to find their
academic difficulties may not all be due to personal
inadequacies. Explaining to struggling sensors or ac-
tive or global learners how they learn most efficiently
may be an important step in helping them reshape
their learning experiences so that they can be suc-
cessful (all types).
The idea is not to use all the above described techniques
in every class but to choose several that look feasible and
try them, keeping the ones that work, dropping unsuitable,
and trying some more in the next course. In this way a
teaching style that is both effective for all students and
comfortable for technical teachers will effect positively on
the quality of engineering students’ learning.
iJEP – Volume 3, Issue 1, January 2013
49
PAPER
RETHINKING EFFECTIVE TEACHING AND LEARNING FOR THE DESIGN OF EFFICIENT CURRICULUM FOR TECHNICAL TEACHERS
The point of taking account of different learning styles
in teaching engineering is not to determine each student’s
preferred instructional approach and teach exclusively in
that manner. It is rather to “teach around the cycle,”
making sure that every style is addressed to some extent in
the instruction. If this is done, all students will be taught in
a manner that addresses their preferences part of the time,
keeping them from becoming so uncomfortable that they
cannot learn, and requires them to function in their less
preferred modes part of the time, helping them to develop
skills in those modes. At ECEP Felder-Silverman learning
and teaching style model for engineering education is used
as the basis for the instructional design.
IV. DISCUSSION
Expert teachers generally are comfortable with wide
range of teaching strategies, varying them skilfully ac-
cording to the learning task and learners’ needs [10].
Some of these are general strategies, such as skilled ques-
tioning, clear communication, organizing lessons, and
effective feedback, starting lessons with a review and
ending with closure, applicable in all teaching situations.
Other, more explicit strategies, called teaching models, are
grounded in learning and motivation theory and designed
to reach specific learning objectives. All of them are
designed to help students develop a deep understanding of
the topics they study and improve their critical-thinking
abilities [3].
There is no sense to stop a lecture and wait for students’
questions. Ask questions periodically (What next? What
could be wrong? What could go wrong? What should the
solution look like? What have we assumed in writing this
formula? How can I correct the problem? How could I
have avoided it?) [3].
More effective in teaching engineering is to involve
students actively, thus finding out what the students have
not understood and only then the teacher answers arisen
questions. The wide array of effective active methods in
lecture should wipe off the notion that good teachers are
born and not made [11]. Once a teacher incorporates
students’ active breaks into the lecture, an interactive
lecture is given, during which students are in some way
interacting with the material for brief, controlled period of
time. A teacher must carefully time-control the student-
active breaks, thus keeping students focused on the task.
Just five minutes of activities in a 50-minute class can be
enough to keep the students awake and attentive for the
remaining 45 minutes of lecturing.
Active learning exercises in interactive lectures address
a variety of objectives: recalling prior material, responding
to questions, problem solving, explaining written material,
analytical, critical, and creative thinking, generating
questions and summarizing.
At ECEP several tested interactive methods, suitable for
teaching engineering are taught to the future technical
teachers. The students practice holding interactive lectures
in seminars and workshops. Teaching methods fostering
active and long-term engagement with learning tasks
emphasizing conceptual understanding are used in the
study programme for technical teachers at ECEP [9]. The
following most frequently used interactive teaching meth-
ods are taught during the study programme:
Pair and compare – students pair off with their
neighbours and compare lecture notes filling in what
they have missed, thus reviewing and processing re-
flectively the lecture content. Time: 2-3 minutes.
Solve a problem – students solve a problem based on
the lecture content it makes students to apply the lec-
ture content, informing the teacher how they have
understood. Time: 3 minutes for solving, 1-3 minutes
to answer questions.
Pair and discuss – students pair off and discuss an
open ended question, in order to apply, analyse or
evaluate the lecture material and synthesise it with
the course material. Time: 3-10 minutes, plus 5 -10
minutes for discussion.
Think-pair-share – teacher gives students a question
or a problem and asks them to think quietly, then to
discuss with their neighbour and finally to share with
the class.
Students’ team achievement divisions – students’
teams receive a worksheet to discuss, complete and
give oral presentation on results to others.
Send a problem – each group of students write a
question or a problem on a flashcard and write a right
answer or a solution on the back. The card is passed
to other groups which formulate their own answers
and check them against that written on the back side,
and write their alternative answers if necessary. At
the end the original senders discuss alternative an-
swers.
The one-minute paper – students summarize the most
important or useful points they learned from the lec-
ture and questions that remained. It helps students
think, absorb, digest, extrapolate and internalise new
material moving it to long-term memory.
The muddiest point – students give a quick response
to a question: “What was not clear or confusing point
in the lecture or topic?” They must identify and for-
mulate what they did not understand. This method
requires some higher-order thinking skills, ability to
concentrate and pay attention.
One-sentence summary – students summarise the
lecture or topic, thus developing abilities to synthe-
sise, summarise and integrate ideas and information.
Directed paraphrasing – develop students’ ability to
translate highly specialised information into everyday
language paraphrasing a lesson compactly in their
own words.
It is recommended to get the class to form teams of 2-4
and choose team recorders, task managers and harmonis-
ers. Give teams up to 3 minutes to:
Recall prior material.
Answer or generate a question.
Start a problem solution or analysis.
Work out the next step.
Think of an example or application.
Explain a concept in own words.
Figure out why a predicted outcome turned out to be
wrong.
Summarise a lecture.
Professors should call on several team responses first
and then take responses from volunteers. This method
50
http://www.i-jep.org
PAPER
RETHINKING EFFECTIVE TEACHING AND LEARNING FOR THE DESIGN OF EFFICIENT CURRICULUM FOR TECHNICAL TEACHERS
always works, as usually students are afraid of giving
wrong answers individually.
At times a technical teacher may need to have students
memorise information or master well-defined performance
skills explicit teaching is used in the described study
programme for technical teachers. It involves direct in-
struction methods (interactive lecture, practice, tutorials,
handouts, assigned questions etc) and has high levels of
student time on task. Goals and outcomes are made clear
to students and sufficient time for instruction and exten-
sive enough content coverage should occur. Careful
monitoring of progress and appropriate pacing is carried
out, and didactic questioning and feedback are used. The
major features of explicit instruction are providing guid-
ance during initial practice, providing practice after each
step, and thus ensuring a high level of success. The ex-
plicit instruction should not be rigid and edifies students to
observe, activate prior knowledge, construct meaning,
monitor their understanding, organize and relate ideas,
summarise and extend meaning. When possible, interac-
tive approaches are used. At ECEP interactive lectures are
of high popularity among students.
V. CONCLUSIONS
In order to educate not reactors to changes but, first and
foremost, directors and executors of changes, it is impor-
tant to promote the development of corresponding atti-
tudes and skills in engineering students. These skills and
attitudes are developed with the support of school, the key
person being a teacher. Without changing teacher educa-
tion we cannot bring about changes in the overall educa-
tional system.
A technical teacher needs to possess skills in at least
two distinct areas: an engineering discipline and the art of
teaching. A good teacher balances these two areas. As the
practice of the ECEP shows, there is a wide interest to-
wards the new courses and the interest will remain high as
there are no other appropriate courses in Estonia today.
Teaching and learning engineering demands superior
teaching competencies of educators. The subjects com-
prise specialist theory in the respective field, laboratory
work and practical training in the workshop; these can be
high-achieving learning environments for all students,
where the most advanced curriculum and instruction
techniques combine to support learning.
The point of taking account of different learning styles
in teaching engineering is not to determine each student’s
preferred instructional approach and teach exclusively in
that manner. It is rather to “teach around the cycle,”
making sure that every style is addressed to some extent in
the instruction. If this is done, all students will be taught in
a manner that addresses their preferences part of the time,
keeping them from becoming so uncomfortable that they
cannot learn, and requires them to function in their less
preferred modes part of the time, helping them to develop
skills in those modes. At ECEP, Felder-Silverman learn-
ing and teaching style model for engineering education is
used as the basis for the instructional design.
Technical teachers are usually highly qualified in the
field they work in, they have enough experience which
enriches their lessons, are able to provide students with
practical examples. But they often lack education in the
teaching profession. These and other factors have led to
establishing education in this field. A highly specialized
person often concentrates on the topic not taking account
of the basic rules and principles necessary to be applied in
all phases of the educational process, starting with hand-
ing on information to students, practicing and testing new
knowledge, motivating students during the whole process,
choosing appropriate methods and forms etc. Each of
these phases contributes to the whole process in a special
way – none of them may be omitted. If so, it influences
the quality of students’ knowledge.
Professional technical teachers develop their science by
using carefully-planned, fine-tuned lessons that reflect an
understanding of many different teaching techniques.
They develop artistry by being aware of what they are
doing, and how it affects their learners. Professional-level
teaching is both an art and a science.
REFERENCES
[1] J. Heywood, Engineering Education, Research and Development
in Curriculum and Instruction, John Wiley & Sons Inc., New Jer-
sey, USA, 2009.
[2] K.A. Kiewra, “Teaching how to Learn” The Teacher’s Guide to
Student Success”,Corwin Press: SAGE, 2009.
[3] R.M. Felder, “Teaching Engineering in the 21st Century with a
12th-Century Model: How Bright is that?” Chemical Engineering
Education, 40(2), 110-113, 2006.
[4] M.J. Prince, R.M. Felder. Inductive Teaching and Learning
Methods: Definitions, Comparisons, and Research Bases, Journal
of Engineering Education, 95(2), 123-138, 2006.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2006.tb00884.x
[5] R.M. Felder Richard, L.K. Silverman, Learning and Teaching
Styles in Engineering Education, Engineering Education, 78(7),
674-681, 1988.
[6] R.M. Felder, R. Brent, Understanding Students Differences,
Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 57-72, 2005.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00829.x
[7] R.M. Felder, Reaching the Second Tier: Learning and Teaching
Styles in College Science Education, J. College Science Teaching,
23(5), 286-290, 1993.
[8] R.M. Felder Richard, B.A. Soloman, Learning Styles and Strate-
gies, http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/ILS
dir/styles.htm (Retrieved February 10, 2009).
[9] T. Rüütmann, Contemporary Teaching Methods as the Basis of the
Curriculum for Technical Teacher Training at Tallinn University
of Technology. In: 38th IGIP Symposium - Quality and Quantity
of Engineering Education, Graz, Austria, 139 – 142, 2009.
[10] P.R. Burden, D.M. Byrd, Methods for Effective Teaching Meeting
the Needs of All Students, 5th edition, Pearson education Inc.,
2010.
[11] L.B. Nilson, Teaching at Its Best, A Research-Based Resource for
College Instructors, Anker Publishing Company, 2003.
AUTHORS
Tiia Rüütmann is Associate Professor, Head of Esto-
nian Centre for Engineering Pedagogy at Tallinn Univer-
sity of Technology, Ehitajate tee 5, 19086, Tallinn, Esto-
nia (e-mail: tiia.ruutmann@ttu.ee), Member of IGIP EC.
Hants Kipper is a Lecturer at Estonian Centre for En-
gineering Pedagogy at Tallinn University of Technology,
Ehitajate tee 5, 19086, Tallinn, Estonia (e-mail:
hants.kipper@ttu.ee ), Member of IGP IMC.
This article is an extended and modified version of a paper presented at
the IGIP2012 conference, held 26 - 28 September 2012, in Villach,
Austria. Received 30 November 2012. Published as resubmitted by the
authors 18 December 2012.
iJEP – Volume 3, Issue 1, January 2013
51
