1 / 18

Improving Active Learning and Instant Feedback in an Introductory Engineering Course

This study explores the implementation of active learning and instant feedback strategies in an introductory engineering course, using tablet technology and group work. The results show improved performance and engagement among students.

oplant
Download Presentation

Improving Active Learning and Instant Feedback in an Introductory Engineering Course

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Improving Active Learning and Instant Feedback in an Introductory Engineering Course Caleb H. Farny Sean B. Andersson Dept of Mechanical Engineering BU Instructional Innovation Conference March 2013 Support from Office of the Provost and the Center for Excellence and Innovation in Teaching

  2. Engineering Mechanics I (EK301) • Required COE introductory engineering course • Fall 2012: 240 students; 4 sections; 4 faculty • Spring 2013: 140 students, 3 sections; 3 faculty • Two 2-hour lectures per week • Analyze forces on static structures • Graphical, mathematical analysis • Course restructuring: Spring 2012

  3. Motivation to change • Multiple sections, multiple faculty: disparity • Strong interest in more examples • Discussion of graphical analysis • Anecdotal evidence for success of in-class problem solving

  4. Influences • Peer learning • Group environment • Enabling technology • Tablet input • Facilitation of student work • RULE funding… Vision • Unified sections • Dedicated lecture time to active learning, group work • Incorporation of tablets for transmission of student work • “Real-time” faculty feedback, criticism

  5. “Lecture” • 4-person groups + tablet • Presentation of new concepts (15 min) • Example problem on new concept (15 min) • Feedback from instructional team • Wireless submission of group work  instructor • Student-led presentation of problem solution • Instructor facilitated • Compare, contrast multiple methods, common problems • Work posted online after lecture x2

  6. Logistics • Instructional team: • Faculty instructor • Graduate Teaching Fellow (GTF) • Undergraduate Learning Assistant(s) (LA) • Active talking: 2 hours vs 30 min • Complexities reserved for problem discussion • Technology: iPad, stylus, drawing app, Dropbox • Enabler, not focus

  7. Evaluation • Spring 2012: • Section A: Traditional format • 65 students, single faculty member • 8 LEAP students • In-class examples • Section B: “RULE” format • 56 students, 2 faculty members, GTF • 1 LEAP student • Same in-class examples, assignments • Comparison: • Quiz • Exam • Instructor and course outcomes • Anecdotal observations: • Section A: Quiet working atmosphere • Section B: Audible buzz, inter-group arguments

  8. Section comparison • RULE section performed higher on all tests • Exclusion of LEAP students widens the margin

  9. Overall comparison A B A B A B A B Overall GPA Course GPA

  10. GPA Dependence • Does demonstrated student record impact course performance? • Screen student pool for GPA below 2.7 • Adjusted GPA: GPA without EK301 grade • Difference between course and adjusted GPA

  11. GPA Dependence • Does demonstrated student record impact course performance? • Screen student pool for GPA below 3.0 • Adjusted GPA: GPA without EK301 grade • Difference between course and adjusted GPA

  12. GPA Dependence • Does demonstrated student record impact course performance? • Screen student pool for GPA above 3.0 • Adjusted GPA: GPA without EK301 grade • Difference between course and adjusted GPA

  13. Course Evaluation Easy Difficult Poor Excellent

  14. Results • Higher average scores on all in-class tests • Relative improvement based on demonstrated aptitude level • 3.0 (B average) and below • 2.7 (B- average) and below • Negligible measurable impact on upper-tier performance students • Self-reported qualitative impact higher

  15. Discussion • Exposure of common mistakes • Multiple routes to correct solution • Instant feedback on acceptable method • Immediate application of new material, reinforcement of method • Peer learning • Breaking down student-faculty barrier • GTF, LA roles • Insight into student miscomprehension

  16. Difficulties • Drawing on iPad • Group dynamics in auditorium-style hall • Lecture delivery, timing External Implementation • Technology aspect a minimal issue • Focus on group work • Higher-level course requires more discourse • Focus on problem definition, solution strategy

More Related