Washington, District of Columbia
June 23, 1996
June 23, 1996
June 26, 1996
1.299.1 - 1.299.5
Learning Partners in an Engineering Class
Henry G. Ansell Penn State Berks Campus
Introduction Prior to the fall 1995 semester at Penn State Berks Campus, a program was presented to faculty on “active learning techniques for the college classroom. ” This program involved examples of working together to learn, and faculty participated in these procedures as if they were the students. The speaker was Mel Silberman, who has written a book on “active training”l. Of all the techniques of active learning that were presented, the one saved for the end of that presentation, and deemed by the speaker to be the most effective technique, was that involving having a partner in the learning process.
The education literature includes words of support for collaborative (or cooperative) learning, in principle. For example, a book by Kenneth A. Bruffee recommends that college and university teachers organize students to learn collaboratively in order to facilitate a process of “cultural change. ” 3 Shlomo Sharan, the editor of a collection of 12 papers on cooperative learning states :
“Investigators of cooperative learning methods and their effects appear to be expressing the position that significant improvement in the processes of teaching and learning in school can be achieved. ”
In engineering education, industrial advisors sometimes indicate the need for engineers to be capable of good teamwork. The increased use of collaborative learning may be an appropriate response to that need.
By the time the fall semester started, this instructor decided to try the idea of having learning partners in an engineering class. The class was Introduction to Digital Systems, in the Computer Science and Engineering Department of the College of Engineering of Penn State University. The course was given at the Berks Campus.
Pairing There were 14 students taking this course, so seven pairs were formed. This was done on the first day of class, based on the students’ choice of seats. The partners sat next to each other.
After about six weeks of the 15-week semester, the students were asked to vote whether the learning partners should be assigned by the instructor, or whether the pairing should be voluntary. The students’ choice was clearly for voluntary pairing. The students were asked to form their voluntary pairs. Five of the original seven pairs remained the same, and two switched partners.
@i& 1996 ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings ) ‘..*,H#: .
Ansell, H. G. (1996, June), Learning Partners In An Engineering Class Paper presented at 1996 Annual Conference, Washington, District of Columbia. https://peer.asee.org/6163
ASEE holds the copyright on this document. It may be read by the public free of charge. Authors may archive their work on personal websites or in institutional repositories with the following citation: © 1996 American Society for Engineering Education. Other scholars may excerpt or quote from these materials with the same citation. When excerpting or quoting from Conference Proceedings, authors should, in addition to noting the ASEE copyright, list all the original authors and their institutions and name the host city of the conference. - Last updated April 1, 2015