32
Report by Group 3 NEW LEARNING AND TEACHING METHODS

Report by Group 3

  • Upload
    kris

  • View
    38

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Report by Group 3. NEW LEARNING AND TEACHING METHODS. Mihaly Benedict University of Szeged, HU Hans Joerg Jodl University of Kaiserslautern, GE Ivan Ruddock University of Strathclyde, UK Elena Sassi University of Naples Federico II, IT Robert Sporken University of Namur, BE - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Citation preview

Page 1: Report by Group  3

Report by Group 3NEW LEARNING AND TEACHING METHODS

Page 2: Report by Group  3

Report Group 3

• Mihaly BenedictUniversity of Szeged, HU

• Hans Joerg JodlUniversity of Kaiserslautern, GE

• Ivan Ruddock• University of Strathclyde, UK

• Elena Sassi• University of Naples Federico II, IT

• Robert Sporken• University of Namur, BE

• Sonja Feiner-ValkierEindhoven University of Technology NL

Page 3: Report by Group  3

Main activities during 2006/2007, page 1

• General questionnaire

– More detailed information on new teaching methods differentiated on Bachelor and Master, regarding categories and quantity

– Information on tools, scientific software and programming languages in Bachelor and Master

Page 4: Report by Group  3

Main activities during 2006/2007, page 2

• Alumni questionnaire among alumni: universities from all the EG-members of the STEPS-project on:– Information company, institution– Position of alumni and other

physicists– Technical/scientific software, tools

and programming languages– Soft skills

Page 5: Report by Group  3

Main activities during 2006/2007, page 3

• Selection of MM on Solid State Physics and Elementary Particles: – MPTL-workshop Wrocław next week

• Evaluation of MM-material in universities from EG3- members:– 7 responses, 4 of them positive, all 4 used

MM as demonstrationmaterial in lectures;– Other 3: no time, not appropriate

Page 6: Report by Group  3

General questionnaire: new methods

• Inventory on courses and ECTS credits, for Bachelor and Master:– Distance- and Blended learning– Problem based learning, project oriented

learning– Student centered learning, Peer Instruction

Page 7: Report by Group  3

General questionnaire, 62 universities

Bachelor: Distance and Blended Learning22 responses

51-60 ECTS; 18%

41-50 ECTS; 9%

31-40 ECTS; 9%

21-30 ECTS; 14%

11-20 ECTS; 18%

0-10 ECTS; 32%

Master: Distance and Blended Learning14 responses

51-60 ECTS; 21%

41-50 ECTS; 0%

31-40 ECTS; 0%

21-30 ECTS; 14%

11-20 ECTS; 7%

0-10 ECTS; 57%

Page 8: Report by Group  3

General questionnaire, 62 universities

Bachelor: Problem Based Learning and Projects, 34 responses

31-40 ECTS; 9%

51-60 ECTS; 12%

41-50 ECTS; 3%

21-30 ECTS; 6%

11-20 ECTS; 59%

0-10 ECTS; 41%

Master: Problem Based Learning and Projects, 45 responses

51-60 ECTS; 20%

41-50 ECTS; 20%

31-40 ECTS; 2%

21-30 ECTS; 18%

11-20 ECTS; 16%

0-10 ECTS; 24%

Page 9: Report by Group  3

General questionnaire, 62 universities

Bachelor: Student Centred and Peer Instruction: 19 responses

51-60 ECTS; 11%

41-50 ECTS; 21%

31-40 ECTS; 5%

21-30 ECTS; 16%

11-20 ECTS; 0%

0-10 ECTS; 47%

Master: Student Centred and Peer Instruction:

22 responses

51-60 ECTS; 9%

31-40 ECTS; 0%

21-30 ECTS; 14%

11-20 ECTS; 18%

0-10 ECTS; 50%

9%

Page 10: Report by Group  3

General questionnaire: tools

• Use of:– Modelling environment– Sensor based (real time) lab– Remote virtual lab– Video analysis

• Use of:– Software (matlab, origin, labview,…)– Programming Languages (C++, Java,..)

Page 11: Report by Group  3

General questionnaire, 68 universities

Bachelor: Technical software - data analysis

Matlab38%

Origin22%

Labview31%

Others9%

Master: Technical software - data analysis

Matlab35%

Origin21%

Labview36%

Others8%

Page 12: Report by Group  3

General questionnaire, 68 universities

Bachelor: Technical software - symbolic maths packages

Mathcad6%

Maple33%

Matematica59%

Others2%

Master: Technical software - symbolic maths packages

MathCad6%

Maple32%

Matematica62%

Page 13: Report by Group  3

General questionnaire, 68 universities

Bachelor: Programming languages

C++37%

C9%

Java22%

Fortran27%

Others5%

Master: Programming languages

C++34%

C9%

Java18%

Fortran32%

Others7%

Page 14: Report by Group  3

Conclusions General questionnaire, page 1

• New teaching and learning methods:– Difficult to interpret data: great variety of

methods; few universities have completely novel approach;

– Bachelor: more PBL & projects– Master: more Distance and Blended learning– Student Centered & Peer Instruction:

very few and no big difference

Page 15: Report by Group  3

Conclusions General questionnaire, page 2

• Software, math-packages and programming languages:– No significant difference between Ba and Ma– Matlab, Labview and Origin– Mathematica, Maple– C++, Java, Fortran

Page 16: Report by Group  3

INFORMATION ALUMNI questionnaire

• Date & year of graduation• Main activity company/institution• Position of alumni in company/institution• Type of tasks for physicists in company/institution• Standard technical/scientific software in your field• The same for advanced techniques• The same for tools to collect information• The same for programming languages • Importance of soft skills

Page 17: Report by Group  3

Main activity company institution

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

AT BE FI FR GE GR NL RO

Phys Based IndustryIT companyUniversityResearch CenterHospitalSec SchoolConsultancy

Page 18: Report by Group  3

Position alumni in company/institution

Development &Engineering

Research

Teaching

IT

Consultancy&Counselling

Manager

Sales

Page 19: Report by Group  3

Type of tasks for new physicists in co/inst

Development &Engineering

Research

Teaching

IT

Consultancy &Counselling

Manager

Sales

Page 20: Report by Group  3

Standard technical/scientific software

Phys based Industry, University and Research Center: NO difference:

• Matlab: 36%

• Labview: 20%

• Origin: 11%• All others, about 35, only once or twice mentioned.

Page 21: Report by Group  3

Information tools and programming languages

• Research Based Industry, University and Research Center: NO difference:

Google: 33%

Wikipedia: 20%

Specialized Databases: 13%

Journals: 10%

C++ and Java, no Fortran in industry

Page 22: Report by Group  3

SOFT SKILLS ALUMNI

Grouping in 8 new categories; importance measured in 1-5 scale.

Teamwork, Social skills, Networking

Independent working, Self-leadership

Result-oriented attitude, Time management

Analytical thinking, Problem solving

Flexibility, Self-learning potential

Initiative

Oral and written communication

Focus on customers, Financial aspects, Quality vs. Quantity

Page 23: Report by Group  3

Average score total group 4,1

Physics based industry 4,7

Score on 1-to-5 scale on

TEAMWORK, SOCIAL SKILLS, NETWORKING

University 4,0

Page 24: Report by Group  3

Average score total group 3,9

Physics based industry 4,1

Score on 1-to-5 scale on

INDEPENDENT WORKING, SELF-LEADERSHIP

University 4,0

Page 25: Report by Group  3

Average score total group 3,8

Physics based industry 4,3

Score on 1-to-5 scale on

RESULT ORIENTED ATTITUDE, TIME MANAGEMENT

University 3,6

Page 26: Report by Group  3

Average score total group 3.9

Physics based industry 4,2

Score on 1-to-5 scale on

ANALYTICAL THINKING, PROBLEM SOLVING

University 4,5

Page 27: Report by Group  3

Average score total group 4,3

Physics based industry 4,1

Score on 1-to-5 scale on

FLEXIBILITY, SELF-LEARNING POTENTIAL

University 4,3

Page 28: Report by Group  3

Average score total group 4,3

Physics based industry 3,8

Score on 1-to-5 scale on

INITIATIVE

University 4,0

Page 29: Report by Group  3

Average score total group 4,0

Physics based industry 3,8

Score on 1-to-5 scale on

ORAL & WRITTEN COMMUNICATION

University 3,8

Page 30: Report by Group  3

Average score total group 3,1

Physics based industry 4,1

Score on 1-to-5 scale on

FOCUS ON CUSTOMERS, FINANCIAL ASPECTS, QU - QU

University 2,8

Page 31: Report by Group  3

Conclusions alumni questionnaire

• Hard to get sufficient data from various countries; mostly due to difficulties in contacting alumni

• No contradiction between data alumni and data from universities on tools, scientific software and programming languages

• Soft skills in general very important; small differences between industry and university

Page 32: Report by Group  3

Outlook on future

• Continuation of MM- evaluation among the steps members

• Selection on good practice examples in new methods

• Further work on data from 2 alumni questionnaires

• Multimedia evaluation by MPTL:– Publication in 2008, Jodl and Mason, 4-6

years