Introducing an instructional model in undergraduate electric power energy systems curriculum-part (I): Authoritative vs. Dialogic discourse in problem-centered learning

A Four-Practice instructional model for a new undergraduate electric energy systems curriculum is described and discussed. This study applies design-based research methods to advance the three goals of design, research, and pedagogical practices simultaneously. It focuses on pedagogical design considerations. In-class practice of the model provides several accounts of pedagogical strategies. The study shows that the Four-Practice Model has redefined the role of instructors in the new curriculum and facilitated classroom discourse. It shows that the model has empowered instructors to turn classroom interactions and communications into effective pedagogical tools in problem-centered learning. Introduction In light of statistics showing shrinking enrollment in undergraduate electric energy systems curriculum, electrical engineering programs nationwide have responded. Educators agree that the quality of engineering teaching needs to be improved, and the content and delivery of traditional lectures fail to motivate students to meet learning challenges and job requirements. The Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of Minnesota Twin Cities has developed a comprehensive plan to revamp the electric energy systems core courses. 1 The reformed curriculum has integrated the three sub-areas of electric energy systems, i.e. electric drives, power electronics, and power systems, into a single focus area. The new curriculum is able to cover a broader range of topics with greater depths while allowing students to explore complimentary areas, such as control systems, mechanical systems, and programming languages. Even with the many significant changes in curricular content and structure, the success of the reformed curriculum also depends on how the curriculum is implemented and how the content is delivered. 2 The current study, conducted in one of the three core courses of the curriculum, Electric Machines and Drives, investigates innovative instructional strategies in STEM education. One of the fundamental changes in instructional approaches for the new curriculum is to utilize problem-centered learning during regular in-class sessions. Students are instructed to learn theories and content by watching online video modules before coming to the class, and solve problems with peers inside the classroom. There have been reports on teaching and learning in such settings where encouraging instructional experiences and learning outcomes, particularly better interactions between instructors and students, were discussed. 3 While technologyenhanced learning has changed perceptions and practices in engineering education and is expected to create opportunities to advance learning , 4-7 traditional means of teaching have been challenged, and instructors are no longer considered the sole knowledge provider. Despite the positive impact of active learning strategies on improving student learning, which has been demonstrated by numerous studies, engineering classrooms continue to be dominated by passive lectures, in part due to limited awareness and receptiveness of active learning among faculty members. 8,9 For decades, engineering instructors have built a strong sense of efficacy upon beliefs of their role as the knowledge provider using teaching practices of lecturing course content in a big lecture hall. 10 Efforts in educational practices to promote active learning have embraced changes in instructional approaches and confronted beliefs in the efficacy of traditional teaching methods in engineering. Yet, research that adequately addresses concerns, confusions, and even tensions arising from changes in engineering education is still lacking. There is an urgent need to advance research to support innovative instructional models that draw on active learning pedagogies. Research in these areas will help us understand what changes are needed in engineering education and how we can align these changes with the development of efficacy beliefs of instructors. Our research establishes an instructional model for widespread dissemination of electric energy system curriculum and provides insights into how the new curriculum engages students in learning. We use the phrase problem-centered learning consciously to avoid invoking mistaken identification with problem-based learning and emphasize teaching practices that problematize the content. We examine several factors that impact student learning in real educational settings: how instructors teach, how students learn, and how the learning environment influences learning. In the first part of this study, we focus on instructions for problem-centered learning classrooms using design-based-research (DBR) methods to develop innovative learning activities and explore changing roles of course instructors in non-traditional classrooms. 11, 12 It will describe a Four-Practice instructional model that includes 1) anticipating, 2) monitoring, 3) connecting and contrasting, and 4) contextualized lecturing and explain how the model leads to an engineering classroom discourse that fosters interactive communications and engages students in meaningful learning. 13 We will discuss the degree to which classroom discourse is authoritative vs. dialogic, and how it enhances the contextualized lecturing in particular. We describe the changing role of instructors during different phases of learning and shed light on the nature of these changes as influenced by efficacy beliefs of engineering faculty. Research methods and theoretical background Design-based-research (DBR) deeply intertwines the three goals of research, design, and pedagogical practice. 11, 12 It requires a productive partnership between the course instructor and researchers, enabling iterative cycles to improve learning activities. Because traditional lectures are no longer appropriate in classrooms under the study, we need to design classroom activities and instructional strategies to make effective use of in-class lecture periods for learning course content. Problem-based learning (PBL), a research-based learning model, seemed to be our logical choice because it is an active model that engages students in learning. 8 However, we quickly realized that the PBL approach was not able to support the curriculum goals unless other instructional interventions were introduced. An instructional model developed for math teachers to orchestrate group discussions in inquiry-based classes helped us redefine our approach 13 . The model, situated in a theoretic framework that addresses how productive disciplinary engagement can be supported in the classroom, allows the instructor to select and organize activities for cognitively demanding learning tasks around the pedagogical principles. 14 For design considerations, on the one hand, we want to understand many variables during the processes to improve design. For research considerations, on the other hand, we need to focus on key questions that are critical to issues in design and pedagogies to be productive. The DBR method creates a unique opportunity that allows questions of design, research and practice to feed one another. During the process of designing and enacting instructional interventions, the instructor and researchers met regularly, talking about pedagogical assumptions and how these pedagogical assumptions influenced classroom interactions. These meetings helped define the following research questions: (1) In what ways does the role of the instructor change in a non-traditional lecture hall? (2) What are the factors that influence these changes and why are these changes important? (3) In what ways do classroom interactions, in particular verbal interactions/classroom communications, function as a pedagogical tool in our current setting? Data collected from classroom observations by researchers as well as from weekly meetings between the course instructor and researchers are descriptive and qualitative by nature. A framework, supported by the sociocultural theory that re-conceptualizes classroom interactions is applied to data analyses. 15,16 Quantitative data are gathered from student responses to the end-ofsemester survey questions and are analyzed using frequency counting. Sixty out of 111 students who enrolled in the course participated in the study. Results and analyses