Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 264

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 38 of the 38 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Differentiated Overt Learning Activities for Effective Instruction in Engineering Classrooms

Menekse, Muhsin, Stump, Glenda S., Krause, Stephen, Chi, Michelene T. H.·2013·Journal of Engineering Education
DOI 10.1002/jee.20021
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background: Similar to other domains, engineering education lacks a framework to classify active learning methods used in classrooms, which makes it difficult to evaluate when and why they are effective for learning. Purpose/Hypothesis: This study evaluated the effectiveness and applicability of the Differentiated Overt Learning Activities (DOLA) framework, which classifies learning activities as interactive, constructive, or active, for engineering classes. We tested the ICAP hypothesis that student learning is more effective in interactive than constructive activities, which are more effective than active activities, which are more effective than passive activities. Design/Method: We conducted two studies to determine how and to what degree differentiated activities affected student learning outcomes; we measured student knowledge and understanding of materials science and engineering concepts. Results: Study 1 showed that students scored higher on all postclass quiz questions after participating in interactive and constructive activities than after the active activities. Student scores on more difficult, inference questions suggested that interactive activities provided significantly deeper learning than constructive or active activities. Study 2 showed that student learning, in terms of gain scores, increased systematically from passive to active to constructive to interactive, as predicted by the ICAP hypothesis. All the increases, from condition to condition, were significant. Conclusions: Our analyses of classroom activities in the engineering domain showed that they fit within the taxonomy of the DOLA framework. The results of the two studies provided evidence to support the predictions of the ICAP hypothesis.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jee.20021

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 264

Metadata

Authors
Menekse, M., Stump, G. S., Krause, S., & Chi, M. T. H.
Venue
Journal of Engineering Education
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-07
Volume
102
Issue
3
Pages
346-374
ISSN
  • 1069-4730 (ISSN-L)
  • 2168-9830
DOI
10.1002/jee.20021
OpenAlex
W2148922214
Cited by
264
References
38
FWCI
41.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.