Active Learning In A Finnish Engineering Course

European Journal of Engineering Education Vol. 29, No. 4, December 2004, 521–531

Active learning in a Finnish engineering university course DEBR A LARSON †  and ANN A-MAIJA AHONEN ‡ This paper is a case study on the use of active learning techniques in an upper-level engineering course at the Helsinki University of Technology. The paper describes how these techniques were introduced and successfully used within the Finnish university classroom. The cultural subtext is explored and attention is given to teaching techniques that are easily integrated into a standard lecture setting. The results of this case study were determined by quantitative and qualitative student data gathered via a structured self-assessment of learning. The qualitative data in the form of written reflections provided rich insights into the efficacy of the teaching techniques and the learning environment. Instructor observations about class attendance, the activating power of group work and the impact of classroom infrastructure are included in this paper.

1. Introduction The typical Finnish university classroom reflects the Finnish cultural tendencies of quiet reflection and shyness in public settings. The dominant teaching method is lecturing with a focus on information delivery. The corresponding student response is listening. Verbal exchanges are minimal. Research shows that Finnish students do not engage in conversation to create and test new ideas. Instead, they like to listen and contemplate ideas on their own (Malinnen 2001). They exhibit strong monitoring behaviour (Kim and Bonk 2002). In addition, Finnish students do not have the courage to interrupt a lecture to ask a question, because they assume others have understood everything. They do not want to be remembered as the student who did not understand (Alestalo et al. 2003). In contrast, the teacher sees both teaching and learning as private pursuits that are managed individually. The teacher’s role is to deliver information via lectures. The student’s role is to be quiet and to gain understanding alone (Repo-Kaarento and Levander 2003). This is particularly true in content-heavy courses with a large number of students (Nuutinen 1998). Although these lecture-based behaviours are congruent to cultural norms and traditions, they constrain student learning; the primary reason being that most individuals are unable to listen effectively to any lecturer, no matter how skilled, for long periods of time (Bonwell and Eison 1991). The research shows that 10 – 20 min into a lecture, confusion and boredom set in and attention remains low for the duration

† Laboratories of Wood Technology and Structural Engineering and Building Science, Helsinki University of Technology, P.O. Box 5100, Fin-02015, HUT, Finland; and College of Engineering and Technology, Box 15600, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ 86011-1560, USA. ‡ Helsinki University of Technology, P.O. 8000 Fin-02015 HUT, Finland.  To whom correspondence should be addressed. e-mail: [email protected]

European Journal of Engineering Education ISSN 0304-3797 print/ISSN 1469-5898 online # 2004 Taylor & Francis Ltd http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals DOI: 10.1080/03043790410001716266

522

D. Larson and A.-M. Ahonen

of the class (Verner and Dickinson 1967, Stuart and Rutherford 1978, Penner 1984). Traditional lecturing is equated to passivity, which leads to learning ineffectiveness. Modifications to the traditional lecture format, however, can lead to more effective learning. These modifications often fall within the context of active learning—a broadly used term that captures the notion of active involvement by students in learning as opposed to their passive exposure to learning through listening (Sorcinelli 1991). One strategy shown to be particularly effective and easy to implement is the mini-lecture. Ten to 20-min-long mini-lectures are separated by short activity breaks where students do a learning task together (Wankat and Oreovicz 2003). By doing together—speaking, writing, calculating, analysing, creating, judging and questioning—students learn (Chickering and Gamson 1987). This doing, however, can invite problems for Finns because it occurs in the public arena of the university classroom and involves discussing incomplete ideas, presenting partially correct solutions and working out answers together. These public behaviours run contrary to cultural norms and classroom tradition. Given these underpinnings, one might be tempted to conclude that classroom activity will be difficult to achieve in the Finnish university classroom. This paper, a case study of an upper-level engineering course at the Helsinki University of Technology (HUT) that utilized the mini-lecture format and other active techniques, shows that it is indeed possible readily to engage Finnish students. Of particular interest to the cultural subtext is that the instructor was an American and many of the teaching techniques utilized some form of public, verbal discourse for the purpose of activation and enhanced learning. 2. Course overview The course, ‘Lightwood framing in the USA’, was offered to civil engineering and forest products technology students who were either in their last year of their Master’s degree studies or were starting their PhD work. The course was an elective course. It started with 15 students and ended with 10. The first author, who was at HUT for a 6-month appointment as part of HUT’s visiting professor programme, taught this three-credit course in English during the spring of 2003. It was designed to meet the technical needs of both student groups while incorporating active learning techniques. The course learning objectives are given in figure 1.

Figure 1. Course objectives for lightwood framing in the USA.

Active learning

523

Figure 2. Retention as a function of teaching technique and time in class (Felder et al. 2000).

3. Teaching techniques A variety of active learning techniques, ranging from long-term, out-of-class projects to short in-class activities, were utilized in lightwood framing. Pre-planned questioning, intended to activate critical thinking in all students, was a feature of every class lecture; whereas other techniques, such as problem-solving or data analysis, occurred when it was appropriate to the content. Except for the case study discussion sessions, the in-class techniques did not require additional pre-class preparation by the students. A changed classroom environment incorporating active learning can come with risks for both the instructor and students. Student fears about the consequences of participation or instructor fears about the lack of participation dominate. These risks were proactively addressed by making the teaching techniques and student learning explicit features of lightwood framing. First, the modified lecture environment became a course objective, which was eventually evaluated by the students. Second, in-class time was taken to explain, ‘why active learning techniques’. Figure 2 was presented to visualize the impact of the mini-lecture format on content retention (Felder et al. 2000). The instructor, on the first day of class, also explained how the lecture environment was going to be modified to incorporate active learning. Particular attention was given to the technique of questioning. This was done for two reasons: (1) the instructor relied heavily on this technique; and (2) the instructor wanted the students to know that answering can be a positive learning experience. Like many students, the students of lightwood framing were all too familiar with the misapplication of questioning. A suggestion was offered that their negative experiences were the result of bad technique, which then led to a discussion on good questioning technique. Figure 3 outlines the essential elements of good questioning (AEL 2003).

4. Evaluation method The post-mortem report was an important student activity that was submitted by each student in lieu of a traditional final exam. It formed the basis of the active learning evaluation that is discussed in the next section of this paper. The report included: an evaluation of student learning over those topics not explicitly addressed by the case study; a peer evaluation of group performance; a self-evaluation of learning; and an overall evaluation of the course.

524

D. Larson and A.-M. Ahonen

Figure 3. A technique for good questioning using small, informal groups (AEL 2003).

The self-evaluation of learning was structured around a pre- and post-course survey of knowledge and skills in the course themes of research, writing, active learning, small group work and technical content. On the first day of class, the students completed the non-graded survey by assessing how much they knew in each of the course themes. These pre-course surveys were collected and kept by the instructor. On the last day of class, the students repeated the survey. The instructor, however, did not collect the

Figure 4. A sample of possible skills inventory results from lightwood framing in the USA.

Active learning

525

post-course surveys, but instead handed the pre-course surveys back to the students. The students were then directed to compare their two surveys and to tabulate and document their results within the post-mortem report. Figure 4 is a subset of this work; showing example pre-course, post-course and change results. In addition, the students were asked to provide an explanation of their numerical results and to identify class activities that may have contributed to changes in skills, knowledge and understanding. 5. Course results The post-mortem reports provided student-generated data and reflections about the course, the active learning environment and the learning itself. Table 1 is a summary of the change results, quantifying the difference between the pre- and post-course survey responses. A change of one equates to a self-reported gain in skill or knowledge of one increment, e.g. moving from an assessment of low skill to medium skill. Table 1 also shows the ranking of course themes in accordance with the class averages. Of particular interest to this paper was the active learning theme with a reported class gain of six-tenths of an increment. The active learning sub-topic results are presented in table 2. Occasionally, a student realized a negative change as exemplified in figure 4 within ‘Identify timber removal trends’. This result is due to an overestimation of skills or knowledge prior to the start of the class. In those few cases in lightwood framing where a student had a negative change, it was always accompanied by an explanation such as the following. The main reason for this [negative change in writing] was my overestimation of skills in the beginning of the course. Although the table shows negative effects, I think that my writing skills did improve due to the course assignments.

The pre- and post-course surveys provided students with the unusual opportunity to test the accuracy of their initial perceptions against what was learned. Negative scores indicate an enhanced awareness of required skills or subject depth/breadth not understood prior to the course. Awareness is intellectual growth. As such, a negative score was interpreted as being equivalent to a positive change of the same magnitude. The numerical results shown in table 1 include this negative equal positive interpretation. In addition to the quantitative summaries, an ethnographic analysis of the written responses was completed. The purpose was to derive insights into the efficacy of active learning. All comments were transcribed verbatim and analysed for common

Course themes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Residential building construction Forest resources of the USA Designing by table and software Research: sources and process Structural behaviour under loads Active learning: why, how, comfort Specifying wood products Small group work Technical writing in English

Average change

SD

1.55 1.53 1.25 1.12 1.00 0.62 0.54 0.51 0.38

1.06 0.84 0.74 0.91 1.04 0.58 0.72 0.71 0.58

Table 1. Student self-evaluation of learning in lightwood framing in the USA.

526

D. Larson and A.-M. Ahonen

Active learning questions Understand why active learning is better Knowledge of active learning techniques Comfort with participating in an active learning classroom

Number of responses

Average change

SD

9 9 9

0.67 0.78 0.22

0.50 0.67 0.44

Table 2. Student self-evaluation of active learning from lightwood framing in the USA.

issues. Of the nine post-mortem reports, there was a total of 47 active learning responses, yielding an average of 5.2 issues per student. Table 3 lists the common issues and the number of times a synonymous comment appeared, expressed as a percentage of the total number of comments. True to the tradition of ethnography, the active learning insights are presented herein through the written student account. Student names, however, are not provided. The comments were offered to the instructor with an agreement of confidentiality, which is maintained in this paper. The active learning course theme, when contrasted with the other course themes of table 1, showed only a moderate increase in students’ beliefs about their knowledge of and comfort with active learning techniques. Furthermore, table 2 suggests that the moderate increase was due to the ‘why’ and ‘how’ versus an increase in students’ comfort with participating. This participation result suggests that the students realized little change in their comfort with classroom activity. The ethnographic analysis of table 3 helps to clarify this. As shown by issue 2, most of the students stated that they liked or were comfortable with the active learning methods. One possible interpretation of the quantitative and qualitative results is that students already liked or were comfortable with in-class, active methods prior to taking lightwood framing. It was clear that after a few weeks quite many of us were comfortable in the class and not afraid to talk anymore.

Common issue 1. Active learning methods work effectively to promote learning 2. I liked the active learning methods/I was comfortable 3. The active learning classroom worked better than traditional lecturing 4. Active learning methods activate/ motivate students 5. The teaching methods were a crosscultural experience 6. The success of active learning techniques depends upon teacher’s personality 7. I have knowledge of active learning methods 8. Teacher must be prepared to use active learning methods

Number of times mentioned (n)

Number of times mentioned (%)

8

17.0

8

17.0

8

17.0

8

17.4

6

12.8

4

8.5

3

6.4

2

4.3

Table 3. Active learning issues as identified by the students of lightwood framing in the USA.

Active learning

527

Lectures were not as formal as we are used to, so it was comfortable to participate and time flew fast. In lecture, I was able to observe the effectiveness of active learning techniques. I did not have any changes at all in the active learning related issues. I am quite familiar with the concept.

The students indicated an appreciation for the active learning methods due to effectiveness, issue 1, or activation, issue 4. These two issues accounted for 34% of the total comments provided. In addition, the students readily contrasted the active learning techniques to their experiences in traditional passive classrooms. Seventeen per cent of the comments were comparative, as shown by issue 3. During the course, I understood why active learning is better. It keeps you awake in class and it gets your attention. Active learning methods force students to think about important issues covered in lectures, instead of just listening. Even though lectures were very early in the morning, students were listening and participating in discussions. This doesn’t normally happen. The risk of sleeping in the classroom was much lower than in normally lectured courses.

One student, however, went beyond the acknowledgement that active learning methods activate. She reflected on why students are sometimes passive, even if the teaching is not. . . . I realized that active learning is truly more efficient, the learning results are better, but the student has to do so much more than in a traditional lecture. In an early morning lecture or at a time when you have something else in your mind, it is hard to concentrate on the teaching. This class helped me realize that it is not always the teacher’s fault that the students are sometimes passive.

As indicated by issues 5 and 6, the students related the use of active learning techniques as either unique to the foreignness of the instructor or to the instructor’s personality. In addition, two students noted that the use of active learning techniques requires that the instructor attend to the business of teaching, planning activities before coming to class. This course was also a cultural course. The teaching method—active learning—was new to me. He or she [the instructor] has to be outgoing and a spellbinder to get a hold of the audience. I don’t think most Finnish [professors] are like that. I believe the active learning method requires much from the teacher. I think it’s very important that active learning exercises are prepared well or otherwise things don’t mange very well.

6. Instructor observations In addition to the student-generated results presented above, the instructor made observations related to active learning during the course. Two of the remarks, student attendance and the physical classroom, deal with issues that are outside the direct control of the instructor, but impact the teaching and learning environment. The teacher and student assumptions about class attendance played out in lightwood framing. There is a tradition among the Finnish university students of irregular class attendance. This behaviour is especially strong if course materials, like textbooks, are readily available and student performance is based upon an examination relying solely on these materials. Successful performance in lightwood framing, however, was highly dependent upon regular attendance for two reasons.

528

D. Larson and A.-M. Ahonen

The first reason, of course, was that the instructor relied heavily on active learning in the classroom. Learning via classroom activities cannot occur if the learner does not attend class. The second reason, however, was a function of course content. This specially designed course contained content from many different sources, using a variety of industry standards, research papers, and government regulations and including information unique to the instructor’s own experiences. As a consequence, there was no printed material that focused directly on the course. Course content was delivered, topic connections were made, context was provided, and tables, software and specifications were supplied during class. Two of the initial 12 students dropped lightwood framing because they had simply missed too many lectures. They did not gain the background knowledge necessary for successful completion of the long-term projects. Both students thought this attendance expectation was exceptional; an expectation that they were either unable or unwilling to comply with. In addition, for those students who stayed with the class for its duration, there was a direct correlation between course performance and attendance. Those students who missed the most lectures did the poorest. The active learning approach taken in lightwood framing is best described as a modified lecture environment supported by long-term projects. The primary tool used to modify the environment was verbal discourse initiated through questioning. Early on, the instructor observed that the students were more comfortable and hence more willing to participate if the questions were posed to groups versus individuals. The perceived risk posed by an incorrect answer became lower if this risk was spread out amongst the group. Group forming was achieved by simply making sure students were sitting close enough to each other so they could discuss and perform calculations. Group work, however, required one additional step by the instructor. After a question or task was posed to groups of neighbouring students, the instructor moved around the room to monitor and help. The small group format, in contrast to individual questioning, had the benefit of perpetual activation. The classroom was energized through group talk, which worked to activate and excite further not only the students, but also the instructor. The physical classroom layout proved to be an important factor in supporting or limiting classroom activity. Luckily, lightwood framing was taught in a horizontally flat classroom with moveable tables and chairs. The students were able spontaneously to modify the seating arrangements at will in accordance with the needs of an activity. Typical of the modern classroom, the lightwood framing classroom contained a large and immovable table –cabinet combination in the front of the room where the computer system and overhead projector resided. This table– cabinet combination spanned nearly the entire width of the classroom. It functioned as an effective technology platform, but hindered the instructor’s ability to move about the room. Active learning is facilitated by accessibility to the instructor, because it communicates a willingness to work with the students. This, in turn, promotes verbal discourse and student participation in classroom activities. Another attribute of the modern classroom is the disappearance of chalkboards, a feature that was also true for lightwood framing. Visual content and written words are displayed via the overhead projector or through a computerized lecture system such as Power Point. Overhead projector systems can be problematic to the active learning environment, as exemplified by the experiences of the instructor and students. To convey important, non-digitized information via writing, the instructor had to move into

Active learning

529

and stay within the small physical zone of the overhead projector located behind the technology platform. Physical movement and accessibility were severely constrained; but even more importantly, the overhead system prohibited students from spontaneously communicating ideas, results and questions with each other via a visual format. The students of lightwood framing could not easily move to the front of the room to access the projector. They could not easily share the projector with the instructor or each other. A few tried, but without much success.

7. Concluding remarks The quantitative data obtained from student reflections on learning and classroom experiences moderately supported active learning. In terms of a positive change in knowledge or skill, the students ranked active learning sixth out of the nine course themes. An ethnographic analysis of written comments provided additional insights about the impact of active teaching and learning techniques. The students provided 47 comments that were grouped into eight common issues. Five of the issues focused on either the students’ response to or understanding of active learning. All comments within the five issues were positive. The students appreciated the modified lecture environment: lecture time flew by, lectures were motivating because of integrated activities, critical thinking occurred and lots of talking happened. The authors were unable to resolve the difference between the moderate quantitative and strong qualitative results. One interpretation, following the thought of the student who reflected on why students are sometimes passive, is students do understand the meaning of activating teaching methods and even like them; but, they also understand how demanding the methods can be versus just listening. Students must communicate and do things in the active classroom. As a result, they may favour the passive teaching methods, which require little from the students during class, even if they know it is not the best way to achieve deep learning. The ethnographic analysis revealed cross-cultural beliefs about the use of active teaching. The students suggested that these techniques were unique to the instructor’s personality or her foreignness. In contrast, the students also understood that active learning requires that the instructor attend to the business of teaching. In many ways, the data and reflections presented here are preliminary. They revealed eight initial hypotheses about active learning in a Finnish engineering university classroom. This case study, however, included other factors that probably impacted the results. These factors included: the class was taught in English; it was taught by a non-Finnish women professor; it included non-graded assessment strategies; student performance was based on long-term collaborative projects versus a traditional examination; and the class was not compulsory—students took the class because of interest versus obligation. In future studies, it would be important to correct for these factors by following up with a validation survey whereby the initial hypotheses could be presented to the students within the context of these factors. Despite this, the authors conclude that it is possible to incorporate successfully active learning techniques such as verbal discourse into a Finnish engineering university classroom. The reflections showed that the students were able to make the transition from a traditional passive classroom to a more active one within a few class periods. We also believe that these teaching techniques are not unique to a particular

530

D. Larson and A.-M. Ahonen

culture or personality. They are unique, however, to the attention given by the teacher to the learning. Teaching with active learning techniques expands the teacher’s focus from what content is being covered to what content is being learned. Teaching with active learning techniques like small group work can perpetuate activity. They energize both the students and instructor. We end this paper with the concluding remark provided by a student of lightwood framing. It succinctly captures the paper’s overarching theme . . . The teaching methods that were used worked, even for us Finns.

References AEL , unknown, QUILT model: teacher behaviors to support effective classroom questioning, Charleston, West Virginia, http://www.ael.org/rel/quilt/model.htm ALESTALO , P., BELITZ , S., SOPANEN , M., TUHKURI , J. and VIRTANEN , S., 2003, Massakurssien yhteiset ongelmat. In Yooppia Ika¨ Kaikki! YOOP2001 – kurssin oman opetuksen Kehitta¨mishankkeet, Teknillinen korkeakoulu (Helsinki: Opetuksen ja opiskelun tuki). BONWELL , C. C. and EISON , J. A., 1991, Active learning: creating excitement in the classroom. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1. September, ED 340272, ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education, Washington, DC, George Washington University, Washington, DC. CHICKERING , A. W. and GAMSON , Z. F., 1987, Seven principles for good practice. AAHE Bulletin 39, March, ED 282491, ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education, Washington, DC, George Washington University, Washington, DC, pp. 3 – 7. FELDER , R. M., STICE , J. and BRENT , R., 2000, Effective teaching: A workshop. American Society of Civil Engineers. EXCEED, Seattle, WA, US, Oct 21 –22. Three-day workshop held annually at American Society of Engineering Educators National Convention, http://www.ncsu.edu/ felder-public/NETI.html. KIM , K. J. and BONK , C. J., 2002, Cross-cultural comparisons of online collaboration. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication, 8, (1), http://www.cscusc.org/jcmc/vol8/issue1/ kjmandbank.html. MALINNEN , S., 2001, Teacher effectiveness and online learning. In J. STEPHENSON (ed.), Teaching and Learning Online (London, UK: Kogan Page). NUUTINEN , A., 1998, Tiedeyhteiso¨ ja oppija—uuden tiedon luojia ja kompetenssinsa ylitta¨jia¨, Oppimisen ja opettamisen luonteesta tiedeyhteiso¨ssa¨. In A. NUUTINEN and H. KUMPULA (eds), Opetus ja oppiminen Tiedeyhteiso¨ssa¨ (Jyva¨skyla¨n yliopistopaino: Koulutuksen tutkimuslaitos). PENNER , W. G., 1984, Why Many College Teachers Cannot Lecture (Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas). REPO -KAARENTO , S. and LEVANDER , L., 2003, Oppimista edista¨va¨ vuorovaikutus. In S. LINDBLOM YLA¨ NNE and A. NEVGI (eds), Yliopisto-ja korkeakouluopettajan Ka¨sikirja (Vantaa: WSOY). SORCINELLI , M. D., 1991, Making the best use of the seven principles and the faculty and institutional inventories. In A. W. CHICKERING and Z. F. GAMSON (eds), Applying the Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education, New directions for teaching and learning, No. 47, Fall (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass). STUART , J. and RUTHERFORD , R. J. D., 1978, Medical student concentration during lectures. Lancet, 2, 514– 516. VERNER , C. and DICKINSON , G., 1967, The lecture: an analysis and review of research. Adult Education, 17, 85 – 100. WANKAT , P. and OREOVICZ , F., 2003, Breaking the 15-minute barrier. ASEE Prism, 12, (8), http:// www.prism-magazine.org/april03/teaching.cfm.

About the authors Debra Larson (PhD, PE) is a Professor of Civil Engineering at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff, Arizona. During the spring of 2003 while on sabbatical from NAU, she worked at Helsinki University of Technology in Finland as a Visiting Professor. She is actively involved

Active learning

531

in teaching and learning in higher education, working with the American Society of Civil Engineers through their ExCEEd programme, completing research in engineering design and student learning, and developing curriculum. Dr Larson’s other professional interest is in the engineered applications of wood, in particular small-diameter wood from forest restoration and fuel reduction programmes. Anna-Maija Ahonen (MEd) is a senior advisor at Helsinki University of Technology, Teaching and Learning Development Unit. Anna-Maija Ahonen co-ordinates a 15-credit programme on higher education pedagogies for HUT teachers and also works as an instructor in pedagogy. Her special interest is with curriculum development and student guidance and counselling.