Differentiated Overt Learning Activities for Effective Instruction in Engineering Classrooms

263 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

Translating the ICAP Theory of Cognitive Engagement Into Practice (2018, background): “…(Chi, 2009; Chi & Wylie, 2014; Fonseca & Chi, 2011), as well as our own laboratory study in the context of learning college engineering concepts (Menekse et al., 2013), we will only describe two studies here, carried out with a much younger population (since the prior papers reviewed mostly…”
The ICAP Framework: Linking Cognitive Engagement to Active Learning Outcomes (2014, unknown): “Similarly, for the study (shown in Figure 2) in which we manipulated all four conditions within the same study (Menekse et al., 2013), we found that performance on easy multiple-choice questions was the same for all levels of engagement activities, but condition differences emerged on more…”
The ICAP Active Learning Framework Predicts the Learning Gains Observed in Intensely Active Classroom Experiences (2017, methodology): “Indeed, several previous studies in college classrooms that compared predominantly interactive activities with activities that could be classified as constructive did not find support for the predicted benefit of interactive activities (Kam et al., 2005; Linton, Pangle, et al., 2014; Menekse et al.,”
The Concept of Active Learning and the Measurement of Learning Outcomes: A Review of Research in Engineering Higher Education (2019, background): “(positive or negative) learning outcomes [11,13].”