Fornecer subsídios teórico-práticos para os professores organizarem situações de aprendizagem centradas nos estudantes e vivenciarem uma imersão nas metodologias ativas de aprendizagem, aprendendo seus fundamentos, sua importância, as fontes de implementação em sala de aula e os critérios de avaliação da aprendizagem.
Fundamentação teórica das práticas em aprendizagem ativa: teorias de aprendizagem e desenvolvimento humano; reflexão e análise de situações reais, seus desafios e modos de superação ou adaptação; Flipped Classroom (Sala de Aula Invertida); métodos Scale-up e Peer lnstruction (Instrução pelos Colegas); estratégias do TBL (Team-Based Learning); metodologias ativas em salas de aula numerosas e metodologias ativas e os documentos oficiais.
1. Fundamentação teórica das práticas em aprendizagem ativa: teorias de aprendizagem e desenvolvimento humano 2. Reflexão e análise de situações reais, seus desafios e modos de superação ou adaptação 3. Flipped Classroom (Sala de Aula Invertida) 4. Os Métodos Scale-up e Peer Instruction (Instrução pelos Colegas) 5. As Estratégias do TBL (Team-Based Learning) 6. Metodologias ativas em salas de aula numerosas 7. Metodologias ativas e os documentos oficiais
Ambrose, S., Bridges, M., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M., Norman, M. (2010). How Learning Works: Seven Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching (1a ed.). Jossey-Bass. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Medicine National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, Board on Science Education. Beichner, Robert; Saul, Jeff; Abbott, David; Morse, Jeanne; Deardorff, Duane; Allain, Rhett; Bonham, Scott; Dancy, Melissa; Risley, John. (2008). Student-centered activities for large enrollment undergraduate programs (SCALE- UP). Research-based Reform of University Physics. 1. Bowen, R. S. (2017). Understanding by Design. Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching. Retrieved [todaysdate] from https://cft.vanderbiIt.edu/understanding-by-design/. Canu, M., Duque, M. e de Hosson, C. (2016). “Active Learning session based on Didactical Engineering framework for conceptual change in students' equilibrium and stability understanding”, European Journal of Engineering Education, n° 42, págs. 32-44. https://doi.orq/10.1080/03043797.2016.1190689 Crimmins, M. T. e Midkiff, B. (2017). “High Structure Active Learning Pedagogy for the Teaching of Organic Chemistry: Assessing the Impact on Academic Outcomes”, Journal of Chemical Education, n° 94, págs. 429-438. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00663 Freeman, S. et al. (2014). “Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, n° 111, págs. 8410—8415. https://www.pnas.orq/content/111/23/8410 Jerez, O. et al. (2015). El deseño de syllabus em la educacion superior: uma propuesta metodologica. Centro de Enseñanza y Aprendizaje (CEA). Facultad de Economia y Negocios. Universidad de Chile. Ediciones Universidad de Chile. 1a Ediçáo. Jerez, O. et al. (2021). “Which conditions facilitate the effectiveness of large-group learning activities? A systematic review of research in higher education”, Learning: Research and Practice, n° 7, pàgs. 1- 8. https://doi.orq/10.1080/23735082.2020.1871062 LaCosse, J. et al. (2017). An Active-Learning Approach to Fostering Understanding of Research Methods in Large Classes. Teaching of Psychology, Vol. 44(2) 117-123. https://doi.orgI10.1177/0098628317692614 LaCosse, J. et al. (2017). “An Active-Learning Approach to Fostering Understanding of Research Methods in Large Classes”, Teaching of Psychology, na 44, pàgs. 117-123. https://doi.orq/10.1177/0098628317692614 Marzano, R, & Kendall, J. (2007). The new taxonomy of educational objectives.Corwin Press. Marzano, R, & Kendall, J. (2008). Designing & assessing educational objectives: applying the new taxonomy. Thousand oaks: Corwin Press. Marzano, R,J. et al. (2005). Dimensiones del aprendizaje. Manual para el maestro. Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Occidente (ITESO). 2a Ediçáo. p.376. Mazur E (1997). Peer Instruction: A User's Manual, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. McTighe, J., & Seif, A. (2003). Teaching for meaning and understanding: A summary of underlying theory and research. Pennsylvania Educational Leadership, 24(1), 6-14. McTighe, J., Wiggins, G., & ASCD. (2011). The Understanding by Design Guide to Creating High- Quality Units. ASCD. Prince, M. (2004). “Does active learning work? A review of the research”, Journal of Engineering Education, n° 93, pägs. 223—232. https://doi.orq/10.1002/i.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x Sample, M. (2011). Teaching for Enduring Understanding. Retrieved from http://www.chronicle.com/bloqs/profhacker/teachinq-for-endurinq-understandinq/35243. Schell, J. A.; Butler, A. C. Insights from the Science of Learning Can Inform Evidence-Based Implementation of Peer Instruction (2018). Frontiers in Education. Frontiers in Education. 3:33. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2018.00033. Vickrey T, Rosploch K, Rahmanian R, Pilarz M, Stains M. Research-based implementation of peer instruction: a literature review. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2015 Mar 2;14(1):es3. doi: 10.1187/cbe.14-11-0198. PMID: 25713095; PMCID: PMC4353089. Wiggins, Grant, and McTighe, Jay. (1998). Backward Design. In Understanding by Design (pp. 13-34). ASCD.
