Upload
kris
View
38
Download
0
Tags:
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
Report by Group 3NEW LEARNING AND TEACHING METHODS
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
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
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
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
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
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%
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%
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%
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,..)
General questionnaire, 68 universities
Bachelor: Technical software - data analysis
Matlab38%
Origin22%
Labview31%
Others9%
Master: Technical software - data analysis
Matlab35%
Origin21%
Labview36%
Others8%
General questionnaire, 68 universities
Bachelor: Technical software - symbolic maths packages
Mathcad6%
Maple33%
Matematica59%
Others2%
Master: Technical software - symbolic maths packages
MathCad6%
Maple32%
Matematica62%
General questionnaire, 68 universities
Bachelor: Programming languages
C++37%
C9%
Java22%
Fortran27%
Others5%
Master: Programming languages
C++34%
C9%
Java18%
Fortran32%
Others7%
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
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
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
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
Position alumni in company/institution
Development &Engineering
Research
Teaching
IT
Consultancy&Counselling
Manager
Sales
Type of tasks for new physicists in co/inst
Development &Engineering
Research
Teaching
IT
Consultancy &Counselling
Manager
Sales
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Average score total group 4,3
Physics based industry 3,8
Score on 1-to-5 scale on
INITIATIVE
University 4,0
Average score total group 4,0
Physics based industry 3,8
Score on 1-to-5 scale on
ORAL & WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
University 3,8
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
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
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