Â鶹ӰԺ

Ìý

Program participation will involve development of a pedagagical module, based on the research experience, to be taught at the home 2YC.ÌýThe groundwork for the module development will be established during orientation on the first day, and will be directly based on the ARETe participantsÌýFaculty Fellows’ background, interests, learning outcomes, and expertise, affording specific research and module plans tailored to each Faculty Fellow.

Curriculum development will rely on principles of backward design, which prescribe first identifying targeted learning outcomes related to research topics, then developing strategies and materials to assess the attainment of those outcomes, and finally developing targeted pedagogical content (cf., Childre, Sands, & Pope, 2009; McTighe & Thomas, 2003; Richards, 2013; Talley, 2014; Wiggins & McTighe, 2001).

Modules created will also reflect best practice in STEM education, with a focus on active, student-centered learning, to provide practice in higher-level cognitive skills with peer and instructor support (cf., Deslauriers et al., 2011; Freeman, 2014; Haak et al., 2011).

Educational technology will also be utilized to create effective blended learning environments, such as the ECEE Light Board Studio (LBS), and PlayPosit video software, as appropriate. The ECEE LBS is a professional-grade studio built and managed by ECEE, and available without charge so that Faculty Fellows will be able to use to create instructional video during the module development sessions. PlayPosit is a Colorado-based software company that offers a product for curated, structured video lessons, with a number of assessment and adaptive capabilities.

The approaches used in this project for teacher training in backward design—learning outcomes and assessment development and active learning approaches—reflect best practices in STEM education. These methods will be implemented both for their efficacy and to demonstrate these strategies for use with undergraduates. Module development sessions will involve minimal direct instruction. Instead, the creation of modules will be developed collaboratively through research, videos, and consultation.
Ìý

References

Childre, A., Sands, J. R., & Pope, S. T. (2009). Backward design: Targeting depth of understanding for all learners. Teaching Exceptional Children, 41Ìý(5), 6–14.

Deslauriers, L., Schelew, E., & Wieman, C. (2011). Improved learning in a large-enrollment physics class.ÌýScience,Ìý332 (6031), 862-864.

Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of National Academic Science,Ìý111Ìý(23)Ìý8410-8415.

Haak, D. C., HilleRisLambers, J., Pitre, E., & Freeman, S. (2011). Increased structure and active learning reduce the achievement gap in introductory biology.ÌýScience,Ìý332 (6034), 1213-1216.

McTighe, J., & Thomas, R. S. (2003). Backward design for forward action. Educational Leadership, 60 (5), 52–55.

Richards, J. C. (2013). Curriculum approaches in language teaching: Forward, central, and backward design. Relc Journal, 44 (1), 5–33.

Talley, N. B. (2014). Are You Doing It Backward-Improving Information Literacy Instruction Using the AALL Principles and Standards for Legal Research Competency, Taxonomies, and Backward Design. Law Libr. J., 106, 47.

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2001). What is backward design? Understanding by Design, 7–19.

Ìý

Ìý