Skip to content
BY 4.0 license Open Access Published by De Gruyter Open Access April 5, 2022

Case study from Université Claude Bernard, Lyon 1

  • Christian Mercat EMAIL logo
From the journal Open Education Studies

Abstract

We present the Active Learning tools introduced in basic mathematics courses in the Preparatory Curriculum for Engineering schools at Université Claude Bernard. Additions were introduced in the academic year 2018/2019 in Foundations of Mathematics 2, in the first year of bachelor study program. Its content are Linear Algebra (matrices, vector spaces and linear applications), Calculus (Taylor polynomials, Integration) and Differential Equations (1st and 2nd order). The Active Learning adaptations resided in the introduction of interactive material, mainly Digital Geometry (Geogebra booklets and classes), and more formative assessment, mainly through an exerciser (WIMS) and during classes (using Wooclap and Kahoot).

References

[1] T. A Angelo and K. P. Cross (1993). Classroom assessment techniques: a guide for college teachers.Search in Google Scholar

[2] N. Arbain and N. A. Shukor (2015). The effects of geogebra on students achievement. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 172:208–214.Search in Google Scholar

[3] J. D. Badia Valiente, F. Olmo Cazevieille, and J. M. Navarro Jover (2016). On-line quizzes to evaluate comprehension and integration skills. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 6(2):75.Search in Google Scholar

[4] C. C. Bonwell and J. A. Eison (1991). Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom. Number 1, in ASHEERIC Higher Education Report. School of Education and Human Development, George Washington University, Washington, DC.Search in Google Scholar

[5] D. Briggs, A. Alonzo, C. Schwab, and M. Wilson (2006). Diagnostic Assessment With Ordered Multiple-Choice Items. Educational Assessment, 11(1):33–63, February.Search in Google Scholar

[6] A. Caldeira, A. de Moura, and C. Mercat (2019). Big events in mathematics using math trails. In Uffe Thomas Jankvist, Marja van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, and Michiel Veldhuis, editors, Eleventh Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education, volume TWG16 of Proceedings of the Eleventh Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (CERME11), Utrecht, Netherlands, Freudenthal Group.Search in Google Scholar

[7] P. Dawson and S. Dawson (2018). Sharing successes and hiding failures: ‘reporting bias’ in learning and teaching research. Studies in Higher Education, 43:1405 – 1416.Search in Google Scholar

[8] E. de Freitas and N. Sinclair (2012). Diagram, gesture, agency: Theorizing embodiment in the mathematics classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 80(1-2):133–152, May.Search in Google Scholar

[9] V. Dörfler, Z. Baracskai, and J. Velencei (2010). Understanding creativity. Transactions on Advanced Research, 6(2):18–26.Search in Google Scholar

[10] S. Freeman, S. L. Eddy, M. McDonough, M. K. Smith, N. Okoroafor, H. Jordt, and M. P. Wenderoth (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23):8410–8415.Search in Google Scholar

[11] I. Gurjanow and M. Ludwig (2017). Gamifiying math trails with the mathcitymap app: Impact of points and leaderboard on intrinsic motivation. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Technology in Mathematics Teaching (ICTMT 13), 105–112.Search in Google Scholar

[12] M. Hohenwarter and K. Jones (2007). Ways of linking geometry and algebra, the case of geogebra. Proceedings of the British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics, 27(3):126–131.Search in Google Scholar

[13] M. Kobylanski (2019). Wims: Innovative pedagogy with 21 year old interactive exercise software. In International Conference on Technology in Mathematics Teaching, Gilles Aldon, and Jana Trgalová, editors, Technology in Mathematics Teaching: Selected Papers of the 13th ICTMT Conference, 123–144.10.1007/978-3-030-19741-4_6Search in Google Scholar

[14] P. F. Lealdino (2018). Didactic Situations for the Development of Creative Mathematical Thinking : A study on Functions and Algorithms. PhD thesis, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1.Search in Google Scholar

[15] P. F. Lealdino, C. Mercat, and M. El-Demerdash (2016). MetaMath and MathGeAr Projects: Students’ Perceptions of Mathematics in Engineering Education. Proceedings of the First Conference of the International Network for Didactic Research in University Mathematics.Search in Google Scholar

[16] P. F. Lealdino, C. Mercat, M. El-Demerdash, and J. Trgalova (2016). Students’ perceptions of mathematics in engineering courses from partners of MetaMath and MathGeAr projects. In Annu. Conf. Eur. Soc. Eng. Educ. Eng. Educ. Top World: Ind.-Univ. Coop., SEFI. European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI).Search in Google Scholar

[17] R. M. Lima, P. H. Andersson, and E. Saalman (2017). Active learning in engineering education: A (re)introduction. European Journal of Engineering Education, 42(1):1–4.Search in Google Scholar

[18] B. Lucas and J. Hanson (2016). Thinking like an engineer: Using engineering habits of mind and signature pedagogies to redesign engineering education.10.3991/ijep.v6i2.5366Search in Google Scholar

[19] J. Mendonca, G. Goncalves, T. Ferro, and M. Ferreira (2016). Teaching and learning of contents from numerical methods using the technology: Comparison of the use of two technological resources. In Mendes A.J. and Garcia-Penalvo F.J., editors, Int. Symp. Comput. Educ., SIIE: Learn. Anal. Technol. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc..Search in Google Scholar

[20] J. Mendonça, S. Nicola, and C. Pinto (2018). ACTIVE LEARNING: SELF-MOTIVATION IN MATH COURSES. In 12th International Technology, Education and Development Conference, 1870–1877, Valencia, Spain.10.21125/inted.2018.0332Search in Google Scholar

[21] J. Mendonça, C. Pinto, and S. Nicola (2018). COLLABORATIVE NETWORKING FOR EDUCATIONAL INNOVATION IN MATH COURSES – PROJECT DRIVE-MATH. In 10th International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies, 4548–4553, Palma, Spain.10.21125/edulearn.2018.1134Search in Google Scholar

[22] J. Mendonça, C.M.A. Pinto, and S. Nicola (2020). Effectiveness of active-learning methodologies in math courses for engineering students. In Nagy B.V., Murphy M., Jarvinen H.-M., and Kalman A., editors, SEFI Annu. Conf.: Var. Delect. Complex. New Norm., Proc., 755–769. European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI).Search in Google Scholar

[23] C. Mercat and P. Berger (2020). Man is the measure of all things: Math trails in lyon. In Research on Outdoor STEM Education in the digiTal Age conference, Matthias Ludwig, Simone Jablonski, Amélia Caldeira, and Ana Moura, editors, Research on Outdoor STEM Education in the digiTal Age, 127–138.10.37626/GA9783959871440.0.16Search in Google Scholar

[24] A. Montag (2020). Domain Parallel Machines. PhD thesis, Technische Universität München.Search in Google Scholar

[25] A. Montag and J. Richter-Gebert (2018). Bringing together dynamic geometry software and the graphics processing unit. CoRR, abs/1808.04579.Search in Google Scholar

[26] ONISEP (2020). Les différentes voies d’accès en école d’ingénieurs. https://www.onisep.fr/Choisir-mes-etudes/Apres-le-bac/Principaux-domaines-d-etudes/Les-ecolesdingenieurs/Les-differentes-voies-d-acces-en-ecole-dingenieurs.Search in Google Scholar

[27] E. Pfaff and P. Huddleston (2003). Does It Matter if I Hate Teamwork? What Impacts Student Attitudes toward Teamwork. Journal of Marketing Education, 25(1):37–45.Search in Google Scholar

[28] C. Pinto, S. Nicola, J. Mendonça, and D. Velichová (2019). Best teaching practices in the first year of the pilot implementation of the project DrIVE-MATH. Teaching Mathematics and its Applications: An International Journal of the IMA, 38(3):154–166.Search in Google Scholar

[29] C. Pinto, S. Nicola, J. Mendonça, and D. Velichová (2019). Project drive-math analyzing students’ perceptions of the improvement of their social skills in active-learning courses. In Conf. Appl. Math., APLIMAT, volume 2, 943–948. Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava.Search in Google Scholar

[30] C. M.A. Pinto, J. Mendonça, and S. Nicola (2021). Drivemath: Reimagining education. In Open Education Studies, accepted for publication.Search in Google Scholar

[31] L. Radford (2014). Towards an embodied, cultural, and material conception of mathematics cognition. ZDM, 46(3):349–361.Search in Google Scholar

[32] K. Roach, E. Tilley, and J. Mitchell (2018). How authentic does authentic learning have to be? Higher Education Pedagogies, 3(1):495–509, January.10.1080/23752696.2018.1462099Search in Google Scholar

[33] A. Siani (2017). BYOD strategies in higher education: Current knowledge, students’ perspectives, and challenges. New Directions in the Teaching of Physical Sciences, (12).10.29311/ndtps.v0i12.824Search in Google Scholar

[34] G. Surendeleg, U. Tudevdagva, and Y. Sang Kim (2015). The Contribution of Gamification on User Engagement in Fully Online Course, volume 535 of 1st Conference on Creativity in Intelligent Technologies and Data Science, CIT and DS 2015. Springer Verlag.Search in Google Scholar

[35] L. Trouche, C. Mercat, C. Cazes, P. Jarraud, and A. Rauzy (2011). Transition lycée-université, penser des dispositifs d’appui. Revue Internationale des Technologies en Pédagogie Universitaire, 2(2):37–47.Search in Google Scholar

[36] U. Tudevdagva. Evaluation model for e-assessment (2016). In Form. Assess., Learn. Data Anal. and Gamification: In ICT Educ., 65–85. Elsevier Inc..10.1016/B978-0-12-803637-2.00004-XSearch in Google Scholar

[37] D. Velichová (2011). Dynamic tools in mathematical education. In Int. Conf. Interact. Collab. Learn., ICL Int. Conf. Virtual Univ., VU, 24–29, Piestany.10.1109/ICL.2011.6059542Search in Google Scholar

[38] D. Velichová (2011). Interactive maths with GeoGebra. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 6(SPECIAL ISSUE.2):31–35.Search in Google Scholar

[39] D. Velichová (2017). Computer assisted assessment in mathematics. In J. Bernardino, J. Rocha, and J.C. Quadrado, editors, Proc. SEFI Annu. Conf. Educ. Excell. Sustain., SEFI, 1534–1540. European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI).Search in Google Scholar

[40] D. Velichová (2018). Dynamic visualization in education of mathematics. In E. Langran and J. Borups, editors, SITE, 1858–1863, Washington, 2018. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA.Search in Google Scholar

[41] M. Von Gagern and C. Mercat (2010). A Library of OpenGL-Based Mathematical Image Filters, volume 6327 LNCS of 3rd International Congress on Mathematical Software, ICMS 2010. Kobe.Search in Google Scholar

[42] R. Weinhandl, Z. Lavicza, M. Hohenwarter, and S. Schallert (2020). Enhancing Flipped Mathematics Education by Utilising GeoGebra. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 8(1):1.Search in Google Scholar

[43] B. E Wiggins (2016). An overview and study on the use of games, simulations, and gamification in higher education. International Journal of Game-Based Learning (IJGBL), 6(1):18–29.Search in Google Scholar

[44] H. J. Yazici, L. A. Zidek, and H. St. Hill (2020). A Study of Critical Thinking and Cross-Disciplinary Teamwork in Engineering Education. In Alice E. Smith, editor, Women in Industrial and Systems Engineering: Key Advances and Perspectives on Emerging Topics, Women in Engineering and Science, 185–196. Springer International Publishing, Cham.10.1007/978-3-030-11866-2_8Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2021-04-14
Accepted: 2021-11-22
Published Online: 2022-04-05

© 2022 Christian Mercat, published by De Gruyter

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Downloaded on 5.2.2023 from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/edu-2022-0007/html
Scroll Up Arrow