Content, Assessment and Pedagogy: An Integrated Design Approach

Karl A. SmithEngineering Education – Purdue UniversityCivil Engineering - University of Minnesota

ksmith@umn.edu - http://www.ce.umn.edu/~smith/

Washington State UniversityFebruary 2010

2

It could well be that faculty members of the twenty-first century college or university will find it necessary to set aside their roles as teachers and instead become designers of learning experiences, processes, and environments.

James Duderstadt, 1999 [Nuclear Engineering Professor; Dean, Provost and President of the University of Michigan]

3

Workshop Layout• Welcome & Overview• Integrated Course Design (CAP Model)

– Content– Assessment– Pedagogy

• Active & Cooperative Learning– Informal – Bookends on a Class Session (PoE

Seminar)– Formal Cooperative Learning

• Design and Teamwork Features

• Wrap-up and Next Steps

Workshop Objectives

• Participants will be able to – Explain rationale for Active and Cooperative

Learning– Describe key features of Cooperative Learning– Apply cooperative learning to classroom practice– Describe key features of the Backward Design

process – Content (outcomes) – Assessment - Pedagogy

– Identify connections between cooperative learning and desired outcomes of courses and programs

Background Knowledge Survey• Familiarity with

– Approaches to Course Design• Wiggins & McTighe – Understanding by Design (Backward Design)• Fink – Creating Significant Learning Experiences• Felder & Brent – Effective Course Design

– Active and Cooperative Learning Strategies• Informal – turn-to-your-neighbor• Formal – cooperative problem-based learning

– Research• Student engagement – NSSE • Cooperative learning• How People Learn

• Responsibility– Individual course– Program– Accreditation– Other

Reflection and Dialogue

• Individually reflect on your familiarity with (1) Integrated Course Design and (2) Active and Cooperative Learning. Write for about 1 minute– Key ideas, insights, applications – Success Stories– Questions, concerns

• Discuss with your neighbor for about 3 minutes– Select one Insight, Success Story, Comment,

Question, etc. that you would like to present to the whole group if you are randomly selected

Background Knowledge Survey• Familiarity with

– Approaches to Course Design• Wiggins & McTighe – Understanding by Design (Backward Design)• Fink – Creating Significant Learning Experiences• Felder & Brent – Effective Course Design

– Active and Cooperative Learning Strategies• Informal – turn-to-your-neighbor• Formal – cooperative problem-based learning

– Research• Student engagement – NSSE • Cooperative learning• How People Learn

• Responsibility– Individual course– Program– Accreditation– Other

PM Q1

PMI Q2

KM Q3

Leadership Q4

EngSys Q5

IE/OR Q6

Mod/Sim Q7

CAS Q8

MgmtSci Q9

6 Sigma Q10

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10

1

2

3

4

5

N = 29/30

MOT 8221 – 2010 Background Survey

Spread Q1

PM Q2

Stat Q3

Mod/Sim Q4

DB Q5

Prog Q6

KM/ES Q7

N = 29/30

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7

1

2

3

4

Resources• Smith, K. A., Douglas, T. C., & Cox, M.

2009. Supportive teaching and learning strategies in STEM education. In R. Baldwin, (Ed.). Improving the climate for undergraduate teaching in STEM fields. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 117, 19-32. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

• Pellegrino – Rethinking and Redesigning Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment

• Bransford, Vye and Bateman – Creating High Quality Learning Environments

Designing Learning Environments Based on HPL

(How People Learn)

Backward DesignWiggins & McTighe

Stage 1. Identify Desired Results

Stage 2. Determine Acceptable Evidence

Stage 3. Plan Learning Experiences

and Instruction

Wiggins, Grant and McTighe, Jay. 1998. Understanding by Design. Alexandria, VA: ASCD

Context

Content

Assessment

Pedagogy

C & A & PAlignment?

End

Start

Yes

No

Integrated Course Design Integrated Course Design (Fink, 2003)(Fink, 2003)

1. Situational Factors1. Situational Factors

2. Learning Goals2. Learning Goals

3. Feedback and Assessment3. Feedback and Assessment

4. Teaching/Learning Activities4. Teaching/Learning Activities

5. Integration5. Integration

Initial Design Phase

CAP Design Process FlowchartCAP Design Process Flowchart

14

Effective Course Design

Students

Goals andObjectives

Assessment

ABET EC 2000

Bloom’sTaxonomy

Course-specificgoals & objectives

Cooperative learning

Lectures

Labs

Other experiences

Classroomassessmenttechniques

Tests

Instruction

Other measures

Technology

(Felder & Brent, 1999)

15

Backward DesignWiggins & McTighe

Stage 1. Identify Desired Results

Stage 2. Determine Acceptable Evidence

Stage 3. Plan Learning Experiences

and Instruction

Wiggins, Grant and McTighe, Jay. 1998. Understanding by Design. Alexandria, VA: ASCD

16

Stage 1. Identify Desired Results

Filters

Filter 1. To what extent does the idea, topic, or process represent a big idea or having enduring value beyond the classroom?

Filter 2. To what extent does the idea, topic, or process reside at the heart of the discipline?

Filter 3. To what extent does the idea, topic, or process require uncoverage?

Filter 4. To what extent does the idea, topic, or process offer potential for engaging

students?

17

Backward Design Approach:

• Desired Results (Outcomes, Objectives, Learning Goals)– 5 minute university

• Evidence (Assessment)– Learning Taxonomies

• Plan Instruction– Cooperative Learning Planning Format &

Forms

18

Remember Understand Apply Analyze Evaluate Create

Factual Knowledge – The basic elements that students must know to be acquainted with a discipline or solve problems in it.

a. Knowledge of terminology

b. Knowledge of specific details and elements

Conceptual Knowledge – The interrelationships among the basic elements within a larger structure that enable them to function together.

a. Knowledge of classifications and categories

b. Knowledge of principles and generalizations

c. Knowledge of theories, models, and structures

Procedural Knowledge – How to do something; methods of inquiry, and criteria for using skills, algorithms, techniques, and methods.

a. Knowledge of subject-specific skills and algorithms

b. Knowledge of subject-specific techniques and methods

c. Knowledge of criteria for determining when to use appropriate procedures

Metacognitive Knowledge – Knowledge of cognition in general as well as awareness and knowledge of one’s own cognition.

a. Strategic knowledge

b. Knowledge about cognitive tasks, including appropriate contextual and conditional knowledge

c. Self-knowledge

The Cognitive Process DimensionThe Cognitive Process Dimension

Th

e K

now

led

ge D

imen

sion

Th

e K

now

led

ge D

imen

sion

A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001).

19

Taxonomies

Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives: Cognitive Domain (Bloom & Krathwohl, 1956)

A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001).

Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy (Biggs & Collis, 1982)

Facets of understanding (Wiggins & McTighe, 1998)

Taxonomy of significant learning (Fink, 2003)

A taxonomic trek: From student learning to faculty scholarship (Shulman, 2002)

20

Backward DesignStage 2. Determine Acceptable Evidence

Types of Assessment

Quiz and Test Items: Simple, content-focused test items

Academic Prompts: Open-ended questions or problems that require the student to think critically

Performance Tasks or Projects: Complex challenges that mirror the issues or problems faced by graduates, they are authentic

21

Backward DesignStage 3. Plan Learning Experiences & Instruction

• What enabling knowledge (facts, concepts, and principles) and skills (procedures) will students need to perform effectively and achieve desired results?

• What activities will equip students with the needed knowledge and skills?

• What will need to be taught and coached, and how should it be taught, in light of performance goals?

• What materials and resources are best suited to accomplish these goals?

• Is the overall design coherent and effective?

Lila M. Smith

Pedago-pathologiesAmnesia

Fantasia

Inertia

Lee Shulman – MSU Med School – PBL Approach (late 60s – early 70s); Stanford University, Past President of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of College Teaching

Shulman, Lee S. 1999. Taking learning seriously. Change, 31 (4), 11-17.

24

What do we do about these pathologies? – Lee Shulman

Activity Reflection Collaboration Passion

Shulman, Lee S. 1999. Taking learning seriously. Change, 31 (4), 11-17.

Lila M. Smith

26

Pedagogies of Engagement

January 2, 2009—Science, Vol. 323 www.sciencemag.org

Calls for evidence-based teaching practices

MIT & Harvard – Engaged Pedagogy

January 13, 2009—New York Timeshttp://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/us/13physics.html?em

http://web.mit.edu/edtech/casestudies/teal.html#video

http://www.ncsu.edu/PER/scaleup.html

Cooperative Learning•Positive Interdependence•Individual and Group Accountability•Face-to-Face Promotive Interaction•Teamwork Skills•Group Processing

Cooperative Learning Research Support Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., & Smith, K.A. 1998. Cooperative learning returns to

college: What evidence is there that it works? Change, 30 (4), 26-35.

• Over 300 Experimental Studies• First study conducted in 1924• High Generalizability• Multiple Outcomes

Outcomes

1. Achievement and retention2. Critical thinking and higher-level

reasoning3. Differentiated views of others4. Accurate understanding of others'

perspectives5. Liking for classmates and teacher6. Liking for subject areas7. Teamwork skills

January 2005 March 2007

Levels of Inquiry (Levels 1, 2 & 3 from Shulman & Hutchings)

Source: Streveler, R., Borrego, M. and Smith, K.A. 2007. Moving from the “Scholarship of Teaching and Learning” to “Educational Research:” An Example from Engineering. To Improve the Academy, Vol. 25, 139-149.

• Level 0 Teacher– Teach as taught

• Level 1 Effective Teacher– Teach using accepted teaching theories and practices

• Level 2 Scholarly Teacher– Assesses performance and makes improvements

• Level 3 Scholarship of Teaching and Learning– Engages in educational experimentation, shares results

• Level 4 Disciplinary Education Researcher– Conducts educational research, publishes archival papers

33

Active Learning: Cooperation in the College Classroom

• Informal Cooperative Learning Groups

• Formal Cooperative Learning Groups

• Cooperative Base Groups

See Cooperative Learning Handout (CL College-804.doc)

Cooperative Learning is instruction that involves people working in teams to accomplish a common goal, under conditions that involve both positive interdependence (all members must cooperate to complete the task) and individual and group accountability (each member is accountable for the complete final outcome).

Key Concepts

•Positive Interdependence•Individual and Group Accountability•Face-to-Face Promotive Interaction•Teamwork Skills•Group Processing

35

Individual & Group Accountability

• ?

36

http://www.ce.umn.edu/~smith/docs/Smith-CL%20Handout%2008.pdf

37

Book Ends on a Class Session

Formal Cooperative Learning Task Groups

39

http://www.aacu.org/advocacy/leap/documents/Re8097abcombined.pdf

40

Top Three Main Engineering Work Activities

Engineering Total• Design – 36%• Computer

applications – 31%• Management –

29%

Civil/Architectural• Management – 45%• Design – 39%• Computer

applications – 20%

Burton, L., Parker, L, & LeBold, W. 1998. U.S. engineering career trends. ASEE Prism, 7(9), 18-21.

41

Teamwork Skills

•Communication• Listening and Persuading

•Decision Making•Conflict Management•Leadership•Trust and Loyalty

42

Pseudo-group

Traditional G roup

C ooperative G roup

H igh-perform ing C ooperative G roup

Individual M em bers

PE

RF

OR

MA

NC

E L

EV

EL

TYPE O F G R O U P

Teamwork

43

Characteristics of Effective Teams• ?

A team is a small number of people with complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose, performance goals, and approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable

• SMALL NUMBER

• COMPLEMENTARY SKILLS

• COMMON PURPOSE & PERFORMANCE GOALS

• COMMON APPROACH

• MUTUAL ACCOUNTABILITY

--Katzenbach & Smith (1993)The Wisdom of Teams

45

Hackman – Leading Teams

• Real Team• Compelling Direction• Enabling Structure• Supportive

Organizational Context

• Available Expert Coaching

https://research.wjh.harvard.edu/TDS/

Team Diagnostic Survey (TDS)

Team Charter

• Team name, membership, and roles• Team Mission Statement• Anticipated results (goals)• Specific tactical objectives• Ground rules/Guiding principles for

team participation• Shared expectations/aspirations

Code of Cooperation

•EVERY member is responsible for the team’s progress and success.•Attend all team meetings and be on time.•Come prepared.•Carry out assignments on schedule.•Listen to and show respect for the contributions of other members; be an active listener.•CONSTRUCTIVELY criticize ideas, not persons.•Resolve conflicts constructively,•Pay attention, avoid disruptive behavior.•Avoid disruptive side conversations.•Only one person speaks at a time.•Everyone participates, no one dominates.•Be succinct, avoid long anecdotes and examples.•No rank in the room.•Respect those not present.•Ask questions when you do not understand.•Attend to your personal comfort needs at any time but minimize team disruption.•HAVE FUN!!•?

Adapted from Boeing Aircraft Group Team Member Training Manual

48

Ten Commandments: An Affective Code of Cooperation

• Help each other be right, not wrong.• Look for ways to make new ideas work, not for reasons they won't.• If in doubt, check it out! Don't make negative assumptions about each other.• Help each other win, and take pride in each other's victories.• Speak positively about each other and about your organization at every opportunity.• Maintain a positive mental attitude no matter what the circumstances.• Act with initiative and courage, as if it all depends on you.• Do everything with enthusiasm; it's contagious.• Whatever you want; give it away.• Don't lose faith.• Have fun

Ford Motor Company

49

Group Ground Rules Contract Form (Adapted from a form developed by Dr. Deborah Allen, University of Delaware)

Project groups are an effective aid to learning, but to work best they require that all groups members clearly understand their responsibilities to one another. These project group ground rules describe the general responsibilities of every member to the group. You can adopt additional ground rules if your group believes they are needed. Your signature on this contract form signifies your commitment to adhere to these rules and expectations. All group members agree to:

1. Come to class and team meetings on time. 2. Come to class and team meetings with assignments and other necessary

preparations done. Additional ground rules:

1.

2. If a member of the project team repeatedly fails to meet these ground rules, other members of the group are expected to take the following actions: Step 1: (fill in this step with your group) If not resolved: Step 2: Bring the issue to the attention of the teaching team. If not resolved: Step 3: Meet as a group with the teaching team. The teaching team reserves the right to make the final decisions to resolve difficulties that arise within the groups. Before this becomes necessary, the team should try to find a fair and equitable solution to the problem. Member’s Signatures: Group Number:______________ 1.____________________________ 2.____________________________

3.____________________________ 4.____________________________

Group Processing Plus/Delta Format

Plus (+)Things That Group Did Well

Delta (Δ)Things Group Could Improve

Formal Cooperative Learning – Types of Tasks

1. Jigsaw – Learning new conceptual/procedural material

2. Peer Composition or Editing

3. Reading Comprehension/Interpretation

4. Problem Solving, Project, or Presentation

5. Review/Correct Homework

6. Constructive Academic Controversy

7. Group Tests

52

Problem-Based Cooperative Learning

Karl A. SmithEngineering Education – Purdue UniversityCivil Engineering - University of Minnesota

ksmith@umn.eduhttp://www.ce.umn.edu/~smith

Estimation Exercise

53

Professor's Role inFormal Cooperative Learning

1. Specifying Objectives

2. Making Decisions

3. Explaining Task, Positive Interdependence, and Individual Accountability

4. Monitoring and Intervening to Teach Skills

5. Evaluating Students' Achievement and Group Effectiveness

54

Decisions,Decisions

Group size? Group selection?Group member roles?How long to leave groups together?Arranging the room?Providing materials?Time allocation?

Formal Cooperative Learning Task Groups

Perkins, David. 2003. King Arthur's RoundTable: How collaborative conversations createsmart organizations. NY: Wiley.

56

Problem Based Cooperative Learning FormatTASK: Solve the problem(s) or Complete the project.

INDIVIDUAL: Estimate answer. Note strategy.

COOPERATIVE: One set of answers from the group, strive for agreement, make sure everyone is able to explain the strategies used to solve each problem.

EXPECTED CRITERIA FOR SUCCESS: Everyone must be able to explain the strategies used to solve each problem.

EVALUATION: Best answer within available resources or constraints.

INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTABILITY: One member from your group may be randomly chosen to explain (a) the answer and (b) how to solve each problem.

EXPECTED BEHAVIORS: Active participating, checking, encouraging, and elaborating by all members.

INTERGROUP COOPERATION: Whenever it is helpful, check procedures, answers, and strategies with another group.

57

Team Member Roles

• Observer/ Process Recorder

• Task Recorder

• Skeptic/Prober

58

ActionName 1 Name 2 Name 3 Name 4 Total

Contributes Ideas

DescribesFeelings

EncouragesParticipation

Summarizes, Integrates

Checks forUnderstanding

Relates New To Old Learning

Gives Direction To Work

Total

Technical Estimation ExerciseTASK:

INDIVIDUAL: Quick Estimate (10 seconds). Note strategy.

COOPERATIVE: Improved Estimate (15 minutes). One set of answers from the group, strive for agreement, make sure everyone is able to explain the strategies used to arrive at the improved estimate.

EXPECTED CRITERIA FOR SUCCESS: Everyone must be able to explain the strategies used to arrive at your improved estimate.

EVALUATION: Best answer within available resources or constraints.

INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTABILITY: One member from your group may be randomly chosen to explain (a) your estimate and (b) how you arrived at it.

EXPECTED BEHAVIORS: Active participating, checking, encouraging, and elaborating by all members.

INTERGROUP COOPERATION: Whenever it is helpful, check procedures, answers, and strategies with another group.

60

Group Reports

• Number of Ping Pong Balls– Group 1– Group 2– . . .

• Strategy used to arrive at estimate – assumptions, model, method, etc.

Model 1 (lower bound)

let L be the length of the room,let W be its width,let H be its height, and let D be the diameter of a ping pong ball.

Then the volume of the room is Vroom = L * W * H,

and the volume of a ball (treating it as a cube) is Vball = D3,

so number of balls = (Vroom) / (Vball) = (L * W * H) / (D3).

Model 2 (upper bound)

let L be the length of the room,let W be its width,let H be its height, and let D be the diameter of a ping pong ball.

Then the volume of the room is Vroom = L * W * H,

and the volume of a ball (treating it as a sphere) is Vball = 4/3 πr3,

so number of balls = (Vroom) / (Vball) = (L * W * H) / (4/3 π r3).

Model 1 (Vroom / D3ball) B Lower Bound

Model 2 (Vroom / (4/3 πr3ball)) B Upper Bound

Upper Bound/Lower Bound = 6/π ≈ 2

How does this ratio compare with1.The estimation of the diameter of the ball?2.The estimation of the dimensions of the room?

64

Real World

Model World

Model

Vr/Vb

Calc

66

Problem-Based Learning

Problem posed

Identify what weneed to know

Learn it

Apply it

START

67

Subject-Based Learning

Told what weneed to know

Learn it

Given problem toillustrate how to use it

START

Normative Professional Curriculum:

1. Teach the relevant basic science,

2. Teach the relevant applied science, and

3. Allow for a practicum to connect the science to actual practice.

68

Problem-Based Learning (PBL)

Problem-based learning is the learning that results from the process of working toward the understanding or resolution of a problem. The problem is encountered first in the learning process B Barrows and Tamlyn, 1980

Core Features of PBL

•Learning is student-centered•Learning occurs in small student groups•Teachers are facilitators or guides•Problems are the organizing focus and stimulus for learning•Problems are the vehicle for the development of clinical problem-solving skills•New information is acquired through self-directed learning

Group Processing Plus/Delta Format

Plus (+)Things That Group Did Well

Delta (∆)Things Group Could Improve

Cooperative Learning is instruction that involves people working in teams to accomplish a common goal, under conditions that involve both positive interdependence (all members must cooperate to complete the task) and individual and group accountability (each member is accountable for the complete final outcome).

Key Concepts

•Positive Interdependence•Individual and Group Accountability•Face-to-Face Promotive Interaction•Teamwork Skills•Group Processing

Modeling

Modeling in its broadest sense is the cost-effective use of something in place of something else for some cognitive purpose (Rothenberg, 1989). A model represents reality for the given purpose; the model is an abstraction of reality in the sense that it cannot represent all aspects of reality.

Any model is characterized by three essential attributes: (1) Reference: It is of something (its "referent"); (2) Purpose: It has an intended cognitive purpose with respect to its referent; (3) Cost-effectiveness: It is more cost-effective to use the model for this purpose than to use the referent itself.Rothenberg, J. 1989. The nature of modeling. In L.E. Widman, K.A. Laparo & N.R. Nielson, Eds., Artificial intelligence, simulation and modeling. New York: Wiley

Modeling Heuristics Ravindran, Phillips, and Solberg (1987):

1. Do not build a complicated model when a simple one will suffice.

2. Beware of molding the problem to fit the technique.3. The deduction phase of modeling must be conducted

rigorously.4. Models should be validated prior to implementation.5. A model should never be taken too literally.6. A model should neither be pressed to do, nor criticized for

failing to do, that for which it was never intended.7. Beware of overselling a model.8. Some of the primary benefits of modeling are associated

with the process of developing the model.9. A model cannot be any better than the information that

goes into it.10. Models cannot replace decision makers.

73

Modeling Resources• Redish, E.F. and Smith K.A. 2008. Looking Beyond Content: Skill

Development for Engineers. Journal of Engineering Education Special Issue,

• Smith, K.A., & Starfield, A.M. 1993. Building models to solve problems. In J.H. Clarke & A.W. Biddle, (Eds.), Teaching critical thinking: Reports from across the curriculum. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 254-263.

• Smith, K.A. 1993. Designing a first year engineering course. In Mark E. Schlesinger & Donald E. Mikkola (Eds.), Design Education in Metallurgical and Materials Engineering, Warrendale, PA: The Minerals, Metals, and Materials Society, 59-73.

• Smith, K.A., Wassyng, A. and Starfield, A.M. 1983. Development of a systematic problem solving course: An alternative to the use of case studies. In L.P. Grayson and J.M. Biedenbach (Eds.), Proceedings Thirteenth Annual Frontiers in Education Conference, Worcester, MA, Washington: IEEE/ASEE, 42‑46

• Starfield, A.M., Smith, K.A., and Bleloch, A. 1994. How to model it: Problem solving for the computer age. Revised Edition - software added. Edina: Interaction Book Company.

74 http://www.udel.edu/pbl/

75

Cooperative Base Groups

• Are Heterogeneous• Are Long Term (at least one quarter or

semester)• Are Small (3-5 members)• Are for support• May meet at the beginning of each session or

may meet between sessions• Review for quizzes, tests, etc. together• Share resources, references, etc. for individual

projects• Provide a means for covering for absentees

76

Design and Implementation of Cooperative Learning – Resources

• Design Framework – How People Learn (HPL)– Creating High Quality Learning Environments (Bransford, Vye & Bateman) --

http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309082927/html/

• Design & Backward Design Process (Felder & Brent, Fink and Wiggins & McTighe)– Pellegrino – Rethinking and redesigning curriculum, instruction and assessment: What

contemporary research and theory suggests. http://www.skillscommission.org/commissioned.htm

– Smith, K. A., Douglas, T. C., & Cox, M. 2009. Supportive teaching and learning strategies in STEM education. In R. Baldwin, (Ed.). Improving the climate for undergraduate teaching in STEM fields. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 117, 19-32. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

• Content Resources– Donald, Janet. 2002. Learning to think: Disciplinary perspectives. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.– Middendorf, Joan and Pace, David. 2004. Decoding the Disciplines: A Model for Helping

Students Learn Disciplinary Ways of Thinking. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 98.• Pedagogies of Engagement - Instructional Format explanation and exercise to model

format and to engage workshop participants– Cooperative Learning (Johnson, Johnson & Smith)

• Smith web site – www.ce.umn.edu/~smith– University of Delaware PBL web site – www.udel.edu/pbl– PKAL – Pedagogies of Engagement – http://www.pkal.org/activities/PedagogiesOfEngagementSummit.cfm