Noel Entwistle, Jennifer Nisbet,

and Adrian Bromage

Edinburgh and Coventry

Workshop jointly with the Engineering Subject Centre

Improving the student experience of learning electronics

Outline of the workshop

Introduce the project as a whole

Explain the concepts being used

Describe EEE settings and data collection

Explain the analyses and present findings

Consider the relevance and implications

TLRP programme objectivesESRC Teaching and Learning Research Programme

Enhancing learning outcomes & engagement

Developing research collaborating with ‘users’

Achieving synergy across disciplines & stages

Transforming theoretical knowledge for users

Producing findings valuable for practitioners

Research objectives and processes

Work with colleagues in five subject areas to explore teaching and learning in their discipline

Explore how teaching-learning environments in each subject area help or hinder student understanding

Use the interplay between quantitative and qualitative methods to build up evidence on the effects of teaching on learning

Investigate ways of encouraging university teachers to enhance their teaching through carefully designed, detailed feedback from students

Main phases of the project

Phase 1 Reviews of the literature, development of questionnaires, analysis of national teaching quality reports, telephone interviews with staff in ‘excellent’ departments

Phase 2

First year group - identify departments and course units, interview staff, collect questionnaire data at start and end of course units analyse these baseline data, report back to course teams, suggest and negotiate collaborative initiatives

Following year group - repeat data collection, analyse data and compare with previous year group, report back to course team, discuss the effects of the collaborative initiative

Phase 3Prepare reports and communicate findings in various ways designed for each of the main audiences of ‘users’

Phase 1 analyses of teaching-learning environments

Teaching quality reports of 12 departments in each subject area and telephone interviews with staff in 6 of those departments were found to differ systematically in the following aspects

Administrative

Research

Professional

Teaching

Student support

And student characteristics suggesting aspects of alignment

Entry qualifications, knowledge and skills at entry, work experience, age, gender, ethnic and home background, & student sub-culture

Figure 5.1 WTPs in electronic engineering from Phase 1 analyses

AREAS OF KNOWLEDGE

BASIC PHYSICS MATHS

ENGINEERING THEORY

ENGINEERING DESIGN

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE -

ENGINEERING, BUSINESS,& SOCIAL ASPECTS

CONCEPTS OFDIFFERENT KINDS

PHYSICAL PROPERTIES

COMPONENT FUNCTIONS

COMPONENT INTERPLAY

CIRCUIT DESIGN

PRODUCT DESIGN

PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

SPECIFIC SKILLS underpinning understanding

Using mathematical formulae

Understanding the physics

Interpreting circuit diagrams

Imagining circuit behaviour

Solving multi-level problems

Using simplifying transforms

Using mathematical analysis

ADDITIONAL SKILLS

Handling apparatus

Reading/interpreting reports

Computer programming

Diagnosing circuit failures

Handling competing advice

Devising working solutions

Working in teams

Reporting convincingly

Ways of thinking and practising in the subject

Courses differ in the

emphasis given to each area

Main concepts within Phase 2

Teaching-learning environment

Constructive alignment

Ways of thinking & practising in the subject

Students’ approaches to studying

Students’ experiences and perceptions of the teaching-learning environment

Lectures,e-learning and other materials

Assignmentsand worked

examples Tutorials and other

student support

Laboratoriesand simulations

Assessment criteria and procedures

TEACHING-LEARNING ENVIRONMENT in electronic engineering

INSTITUTIONALINFLUENCES

EXTERNAL INFLUENCES

External validation

Subject benchmarks

Employers' views

Teaching conventions

Quality assurance & performance indicators

Level of RAE and other funding

Student intake

Regulation of assessment etc.

Popularity of the subject

Explaining principles & procedures

Providing advice & encouragement

Individual experience & checking workings

Seeing relevance through applications

Checking on understanding

& progress

Constructive alignment

A good teaching system aligns teaching method and assessment to the learning activities stated in the objectives, so that all aspects of this system act in accord to support appropriate learning. This system is called constructive alignment, based as it is on the twin principles of constructivism in learning and alignment in teaching.

John Biggs (2003, p. 11)

Ways of thinking and practising in the subject (WTP)

The richness, depth and breadth of what students might learn through engagement with a given subject area in a specific context. This might include, for example, coming to terms with particular understandings, forms of discourse, values or ways of acting which are regarded as central to graduate-level mastery of a discipline or subject area…

McCune & Hounsell (2005)

Approaches to learning and studying

Deep approach- understand for yourself

Surface approach- complete required work

Organised studying and time-management

Effort and concentration

Experiences and perceptions of the teaching-learning environment

Clear aims and well-organised course unit

Teaching focusing on understanding & WTP

Set work and feedback supporting WTP

Staff enthusiasm and support

Support from other students

Interest and enjoyment

Main components of Phase 2 data

Documents describing the course unit and materials made available to students

Discussions and interviews with members of course team transcribed or recorded in notes

Questionnaires completed by students at start and end of each selected course unitLearning and Studying Questionnaire -SLQ Experiences of Teaching and Learning Questionnaire - ETLQ

Interviews with small groups of students about their experiences of teaching

Electronic engineering settings

Ancient research-intensive universityAnalogue units in second and fourth year

Technological research-intensive university Analogue in second, third and fourth years

Post-1992 university Analogue taught in the final year

Technology collegeIntroduction to microprocessors

Strategy for integrating findings

Build up evidence from a variety of sources to reach conclusions, in much the same way as a barrister builds up a case in court

Establish the main type of ways of thinking and practising being encouraged in the course units from literature, Phase 1, and interviews with staff & students

Consider the extent to which different teaching-learning environments were seen by students as supporting their

learning effectively from questionnaires, and interviews with students and staff

Evaluate the perceived effects of the collaborative initiatives to explore effective pedagogy within the subject area from questionnaires, and interviews with students and staff

Ways of thinking in analogue electronics

Appreciating the overall function of a circuit

Recognising the crucial groups of components

Seeing how to set about analysing different circuits

Having the necessary analytic tools for solutions

Developing a memory bank of contrasting examples

Thinking intuitively in designing new circuits

Strategy for looking at student learning

Analyse relationships between questionnaire scales

Compare the means of scales for course units

Analyse the responses to individual items

Analyse the interview transcripts for further evidence

Report findings to teaching staff and discuss

Devise a collaborative initiative where appropriate

Analyses of questionnaires Factor analysis of the complete set of scales

Factor I Good experiences of teaching & outcomeslinked to low surface approach in electronic engineering

Factor II Deep approach with interest in the subject

Factor III Organised effort put into studying

Factor IV Surface approach with lack of purposelinked to choosing unit because thought to be easy (EE)

Factor V Perceived easiness and achievementlinked to prior achievement and low surface in EE

Mean scale scores for three unitsReasons for taking the degree and the unit

Course unit A (94) B (68) C (54)

Reasons for taking the degree Career 4.14 4.22 4.39 Interest 4.08 3.87 3.70 Social 4.10 4.03 4.02 Lack of purpose 1.78 2.00 2.85

Reasons for taking the unit Needed for career 3.20 3.28 3.62 Interest 4.05 3.82 3.50 Importance 4.45 4.30 4.04 Expected easiness 1.60 1.62 1.57

All scales recalculated to be on a 1-5 (high) scale with a median of 3

Mean scale scores for three unitsApproaches to studying and perceived easiness of unit

Course unit A (94) B (68) C (54)

Approaches to learning and studying Deep approach prior to unit 3.76 3.55 3.41 Surface approach prior to unit 2.51 2.80 3.11 Effort 3.57 3.64 3.61

Difference in deep during unit - 0.45 - 0.14 0.11 Difference in surface during unit 0.54 0.19 - 0.33

Perceived easiness of demands made by unit Knowledge 3.41 3.73 3.35 Pace 2.40 3.02 3.63 Academic difficulty 2.62 2.89 2.99 Workload 2.57 2.92 3.30

Mean scale scores for three unitsExperiences of teaching and knowledge acquired

Course unit A (94) B (68) C (54)

Clear aims and well-organised unit 3.86 3.71 4.47

Teaching focusing on understanding 3.17 3.39 3.69

Set work and feedback for WTP 3.52 3.05 3.87

Staff enthusiasm and support 4.10 4.24 4.66

Support from other students 3.95 3.89 3.96

Interest and enjoyment 3.03 3.05 4.19

Knowledge and skills acquired 3.63 3.62 4.13

Changes in approaches to studying Percentage agreement with items before and during units

Course unit A (94) B (68) C (54)

I usually set out to understand Before 95.6 87.5 81.2 During 72.1 82.5 75.0

Trouble making sense of things Before 25.0 40.0 43.7

During 61.8 55.0 34.4

Generally put a lot of effort in Before 60.3 77.5 53.1 During 51.5 60.0 40.6

Systematic and organised study Before 65.9 62.5 46.9 During 44.1 47.5 50.0

Experiences of teaching Percentage agreement with items on the same three units

Course unit A (94) B (68) C (54)

Easy pace in lectures 25.3 46.9 72.5

Amount of work required easy 33.3 34.7 52.5

Teaching fitted in with learning 72.0 67.3 97.5

Most of material was interesting 45.3 34.7 82.5

Plenty of examples provided 66.7 51.0 95.0

Staff were patient in explaining 81.3 81.6 92.5

Feedback given made things clearer 63.7 30.6 47.5

Attitudes and approaches to studying - 1

You’re repeatedly reading it, hearing it, talking about it, doing it, doing it, doing it [and] that doesn’t work for me. For first, second and part of third year, it was a case of scraping by. I’ve tried to go through the motions; it’s the sameness. Each day is that pattern.

At the beginning I was all [at sea], sort of too much information at one time. I just think that we’re given too many different concepts at one time… It seemed that once we’d gone over one specific network we weren’t given enough time to absorb the information before we were given another one, and the difficulty level increased as you went onwards.

Attitudes and approaches to studying - 2

You have to focus your energy where it’s rewarded… You work through the problems and for the analogue ones, you don’t get any answers out of them.

You can’t see how in the world you got from point ‘a’ to point ‘b’. I tended to work blindly. I knew if I just followed these steps, then I could get an answer, but have no idea what to do and yet we scrape by.

We probably would have got great marks had we actually understood what we were doing.

Delayed understanding

In second year I got a better understanding of what I learntin first year. Now in third year I’ve kind of learnt what I wassupposed to know in second year. It’s a shame I’ve neverfelt that I’ve learned it in the actual year [it was taught]…

When you’re being taught something, you’re just desperatelytrying to learn it, and there’s not necessarily a whole lot ofinterest. You’re scrambling back to notes in preparing forthe exams, trying to understand the course. Later on, youdo get interested and [then] things start to fall into place.

What do these findings suggest to you?

What were the problems facing the students?

What do you see as the main causes of them?

What might be done to overcome them?

Difficulties in learning analogue

Seeing the relevance when carrying out analyses

Coping with the pace as new ideas are introduced

Lack of variety in the teaching-learning experiences

Not understanding which type of circuit is involved

Reduced confidence through failing to solve problems

Not enough feedback to understand mistakes

Collaborative initiatives in analogue

Increase students’ focus on understanding by reflecting on problem-solving processes

Problem-solving in electronics stressed and modelled during lectures & examples classes

Students encouraged to use a ‘log-book’ to record and comment on solutions

Arrangements made to facilitate systematic group discussion during tutorials

Helpfulness of teaching-learning activities in three units involved in the collaborative initiative

Mean ratings on 1 -7 scale Unit A Unit B Unit C

(N = 59) (73) (27)

The way diagrams presented 5.0 5.3 5.9

The way ideas explained in lectures 4.3 5.6 5.2

Lecture explanations of problems 4.2 5.8 4.9

Worked examples provided 5.0 3.6 5.7

Working on problems on own 5.2 4.6 5.3

Using the log-book 4.2 4.3 5.1

Staff help in tutorials 5.0 4.0 5.9

Discussions with other students 4.8 4.7 5.0

Feedback on work submitted 3.5 3.6 not given

Class tests and the results 4.3 4.2 not given

The ‘logic’ of teaching analogue electronicsTeaching-learning activities necessary in supporting learning

Circuits linked to real-life illustrations from industry

Main circuit components highlighted in diagrams

Functions of circuits fully explained with examples

Ways of thinking about circuits exemplified

Students work through varied examples & comment

Worked examples provided and fully explained

Sufficient tutors available to provide prompt advice

Progress monitored in tutorial work and tests

Quality of learning achieved

Influences of academic community and validating bodies

Conceptions of learning & approaches

to studying

Influences of department/school

and institution

What students are expected to learn and understand

Congruence withaims, WTPs &

students

Perceptions of the teaching-learning

environment

How course material is selected, organised,

presented & assessed

How teaching-learning environment is designed

and implemented

Logic of the subject & its pedagogy

General principles of course design

Students' backgrounds, knowledge & aspirations

University teachers' subject knowledge and

pedagogical beliefs

References related to project

See papers in International Journal of Electrical Engineering Education 42/1, 2005, and other papers on, or forthcoming, on project web-site at www.ed.ac.uk/etl/publications.html

McCune, V., & Hounsell, D. J. (2005). The development of students’ ways of thinking and practising in three final-year biology courses. Higher Education, 49, 255–289

Indicative general referencesBiggs, J. B. (2003). Teaching for Quality Learning at

University. (2nd Ed). Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press.

Entwistle, N. J. (1998). Improving teaching through research in student learning. In J. J. F. Forest (Ed.), University Teaching: International Perspectives (pp. 73-112). New York: Garland Publishing.

Entwistle, N. J. (2003). Concepts and conceptual frameworks underpinning the ETL project. ETL Occasional Reports, 3, see the project web site

Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1997). Approaches to learning.

In Marton, F., Hounsell, D. J., & Entwistle, N. J. (Eds.), The Experience of Learning (2nd ed.) (pp. 39-58). Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press

(now on project web site).