Full STEAM提出了将艺术教学法融入STEM教育的宣言

A. Connor, S. Karmokar, C. Whittington, Charles Walker
{"title":"Full STEAM提出了将艺术教学法融入STEM教育的宣言","authors":"A. Connor, S. Karmokar, C. Whittington, Charles Walker","doi":"10.1109/TALE.2014.7062556","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper sets out to challenge the common pedagogies found in STEM education with a particular focus on engineering. The dominant engineering pedagogy remains “chalk and talk”; despite research evidence that demonstrates its ineffectiveness. The paper argues that there is a potential confusion in engineering education around the role of active learning approaches, and that the adoption of these approaches may be limited as a result of this confusion, combined with a degree of disciplinary egocentrism. The paper presents examples of engineering and “engineering like” projects that demonstrate the effectiveness of adopting pedagogies and delivery methods more usually attributed to the liberal arts such as studio based learning. The paper concludes with some suggestions about how best to create a fertile environment from which inquiry based learning can emerge as well as a reflection on whether the only real limitation on cultivating such approaches is the disciplinary egocentrism of traditional engineering educators.","PeriodicalId":230734,"journal":{"name":"2014 IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment and Learning for Engineering (TALE)","volume":"111 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Full STEAM ahead a manifesto for integrating arts pedagogics into STEM education\",\"authors\":\"A. Connor, S. Karmokar, C. Whittington, Charles Walker\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/TALE.2014.7062556\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper sets out to challenge the common pedagogies found in STEM education with a particular focus on engineering. The dominant engineering pedagogy remains “chalk and talk”; despite research evidence that demonstrates its ineffectiveness. The paper argues that there is a potential confusion in engineering education around the role of active learning approaches, and that the adoption of these approaches may be limited as a result of this confusion, combined with a degree of disciplinary egocentrism. The paper presents examples of engineering and “engineering like” projects that demonstrate the effectiveness of adopting pedagogies and delivery methods more usually attributed to the liberal arts such as studio based learning. The paper concludes with some suggestions about how best to create a fertile environment from which inquiry based learning can emerge as well as a reflection on whether the only real limitation on cultivating such approaches is the disciplinary egocentrism of traditional engineering educators.\",\"PeriodicalId\":230734,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2014 IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment and Learning for Engineering (TALE)\",\"volume\":\"111 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-12-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2014 IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment and Learning for Engineering (TALE)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/TALE.2014.7062556\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2014 IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment and Learning for Engineering (TALE)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/TALE.2014.7062556","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

摘要

本文旨在挑战STEM教育中的常见教学法,并特别关注工程学。占主导地位的工程教学方法仍然是“粉笔和谈话”;尽管研究证据表明它是无效的。本文认为,在工程教育中,围绕主动学习方法的作用存在潜在的混淆,并且由于这种混淆,加上一定程度的学科自我中心主义,这些方法的采用可能会受到限制。本文介绍了工程和“工程类”项目的例子,这些项目证明了采用通常归因于文科的教学法和交付方法的有效性,例如基于工作室的学习。本文最后就如何最好地创造一个探究性学习的肥沃环境提出了一些建议,并反思了培养这种方法的唯一真正限制是否是传统工程教育者的学科自我中心主义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Full STEAM ahead a manifesto for integrating arts pedagogics into STEM education
This paper sets out to challenge the common pedagogies found in STEM education with a particular focus on engineering. The dominant engineering pedagogy remains “chalk and talk”; despite research evidence that demonstrates its ineffectiveness. The paper argues that there is a potential confusion in engineering education around the role of active learning approaches, and that the adoption of these approaches may be limited as a result of this confusion, combined with a degree of disciplinary egocentrism. The paper presents examples of engineering and “engineering like” projects that demonstrate the effectiveness of adopting pedagogies and delivery methods more usually attributed to the liberal arts such as studio based learning. The paper concludes with some suggestions about how best to create a fertile environment from which inquiry based learning can emerge as well as a reflection on whether the only real limitation on cultivating such approaches is the disciplinary egocentrism of traditional engineering educators.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信