Pedagogies of Engagement: Classroom‐Based Practices

By Karl A. Smith, Sheri D. Sheppard, David W. Johnson, Roger T. Johnson. 2005

1,485 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Biomedical Engineering, Education, Media Technology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/201d33920bd5abfd3090f24bd2ba76c51d281080

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Education

1. Karl A. Smith
2. Natalie R. Nielsen
3. Rui M. Lima
4. Sandra Fernandes
5. Edward F. Redish
6. Diana Mesquita
7. Lorelle L. Espinosa
8. Susan Rundell Singer

In Media Technology

1. Diana Mesquita
2. Sandra Fernandes
3. Glenda S. Stump

Citations in the corpus

• Engaging students in learning: findings from a study of project-led education (2014, background): “…problem and project-based learning (PBL) and other cooperative learning strategies (Dochy et al. 2003; Prince 2004) have been considered ‘pedagogies of engagement’ (Smith et al. 2005) because they require students to be actively involved in learning as they ‘do’ the tasks of a given subject matter.”
• Pipelines and Pathways: Women of Color in Undergraduate STEM Majors and the College Experiences That Contribute to Persistence (2011, background): “A final measure tests the relationship between women’s intent to major in engineering and their overall persistence in STEM given a push by engineering departments to integrate innovative pedagogies that incorporate collaborative environments (Smith, Sheppard, Johnson, & Johnson, 2005).”
• Student and Faculty Perceptions of Engagement in Engineering (2010, methodology): “In 2001, Russ Edgerton (as cited in Smith et al., 2005) was among the first to employ the concept of “pedagogies of engagement.””
• Discipline-Based Education Research: Understanding and Improving Learning in Undergraduate Science and Engineering. (2012, background): “The reviews of DBER commissioned for this study ( Bailey, 2011; Dirks, 2011; Docktor and Mestre, 2011; Piburn, Kraft, and Pacheco, 2011; Svinicki, 2011; Towns and Kraft, 2011), along with other syntheses (e.g., Allen and Tanner, 2009; Hake, 1998; Handelsman, Miller, and Pfund, 2007; Prince, 2004; Ru”
• Collaborative Learning in Engineering Students: Gender and Achievement (2011, background): “For example, if the class offers a mixture of correct and incorrect responses to an instructor’s question during lecture, the instructor may have students turn to their neighbor, compare answers, justify their response, and attempt to reach consensus (Smith et al., 2005).”
• An Examination of Socially Destructive Behaviors in Group Work (2011, background): “…this theory, learning outcomes are seen as being dependent on how individuals act, which in itself is determined by the degree of social interdependence and engagement present and not just the academic growth of the individual student (Johnson & Johnson, 1987; Slavin, 1983; Smith et al., 2005).”
• Looking Beyond Content: Skill Development for Engineers (2008, background): “Extensive research supports the idea that students can develop their knowledge and skills much more effectively in well-structured group-learning environments than they can individually (Johnson, Johnson and Smith, 1991; Smith, Sheppard, Johnson and Johnson, 2005; Johnson, Johnson and Smith, 2007)”
• Fostering student engagement through a real-world, collaborative project across disciplines and institutions (2020, background): “and problem-based learning (Krain, 2010; Smith et al., 2005), technology integration”