An Analysis of Recipe-based Instruction in an Introductory Fluid Mechanics Laboratory

Blake Everett Johnson; Jason W Morphew

Download Paper | Permalink

Conference: 2016 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition
Location: New Orleans, Louisiana
Publication Date: June 26, 2016
Start Date: June 26, 2016
End Date: June 29, 2016
ISBN: 978-0-692-68565-5
ISSN: 2153-5965
Conference Session: Teaching & Learning Dynamics, Vibration, and Mechanics More Broadly
Tagged Division: Mechanics
Page Count: 12
DOI: 10.18260/p.26564
Permanent URL: https://peer.asee.org/26564
Download Count: 544

Request a correction

Paper Authors

biography

Blake Everett Johnson University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

visit author page

Dr. Blake Everett Johnson received his doctorate in Theoretical and Applied Mechanics at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 2012 for his experimental studies of heated jets in cross-flow. Other topics of interest to him include boundary layer turbulence over realistic rough surfaces, film cooling of gas turbine engines, pressure-sensitive paint, and development of new teaching methods in introductory mechanics courses. Dr. Johnson now works as a lecturer and lab manager in the Department of Mechanical Science and Engineering (MechSE) at the University of Illinois. While remaining interested and active in the field of experimental fluid mechanics, he has chosen to spend most of his professional energy on improving the teaching of thermo/fluids laboratory courses through the development of engaging and intellectually-stimulating laboratory exercises, as well as improving introductory mechanics education and design courses in the MechSE department.

visit author page

author page

Jason W Morphew University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Download Paper | Permalink

Abstract

Undergraduate mechanics laboratory classes have frequently been taught with a primary goal of demonstrating principles successfully through experimentation and a secondary goal of teaching proper experimental techniques, among others. Historically, this set of priorities has motivated laboratory courses to provide students with prescribed experimental methods, i.e. a “recipe” to follow. Because mechanics principles are already taught in the associated lecture portion of our mechanics classes, demonstration of them in the laboratory may be considered redundant.

There may be an opportunity to enhance the educational outcomes for our graduates by altering the priorities of lab courses. Industry feedback suggests that our graduates would benefit from improving their ability to design experiments. In addition, research has demonstrated that inquiry‐style labs (in which the exact sequence of steps is not given to students) often promote the development of these skills and may lead to better preparation for future learning.

In an early effort to address this issue, we began requiring students to design their own experiment to perform with the given lab equipment, which included analysis of independent, dependent, & control variables and development of a set of experimental procedures. Students would complete this exercise in the first half hour of the lab session, producing a handwritten document that contained their proposed experimental procedures. However, to satisfy the primary goal, students were still assigned a recipe to use for their hands‐on experimental work. Informal observation of student behavior under these conditions suggested that their interest in the lab work was poor: that they were not engaging intellectually in their experimental work, and that each group of students frequently had multiple disengaged members.

These observations motivated us to deprioritize the goal of demonstrating mechanics principles experimentally. Instead of following a recipe, students have been given freedom to design and perform their own experiments by using the equipment provided to satisfy a given set of objectives. Informal observations by teaching assistants indicated marked improvement in student engagement and relatively low rate of failed experiments.

This paper reports on a study designed to formalize the observations of the difference in student engagement between labs where a recipe is provided and labs for which students are only allowed to use their own experimental design. Lab sections were randomly assigned to complete each style of labs. Where possible, TAs taught students under both treatment methods. Lab sessions were videotaped so that student behaviors can be observed and coded for formal analysis. A “challenge” lab exercise was administered to assess whether the differing treatment results in improved analyses during the data acquisition stage of the experiment. Diagnostic midterm exam questions were given to assess whether critical thinking skills are affected by the difference in lab treatment.

Citation
Format

Johnson, B. E., & Morphew, J. W. (2016, June), An Analysis of Recipe-based Instruction in an Introductory Fluid Mechanics Laboratory Paper presented at 2016 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, New Orleans, Louisiana. 10.18260/p.26564

TY - CPAPER
AB - Undergraduate mechanics laboratory classes have frequently been taught with a primary goal of demonstrating principles successfully through experimentation and a secondary goal of teaching proper experimental techniques, among others. Historically, this set of priorities has motivated laboratory courses to provide students with prescribed experimental methods, i.e. a “recipe” to follow. Because mechanics principles are already taught in the associated lecture portion of our mechanics classes, demonstration of them in the laboratory may be considered redundant.

There may be an opportunity to enhance the educational outcomes for our graduates by altering the priorities of lab courses. Industry feedback suggests that our graduates would benefit from improving their ability to design experiments. In addition, research has demonstrated that inquiry‐style labs (in which the exact sequence of steps is not given to students) often promote the development of these skills and may lead to better preparation for future learning.

In an early effort to address this issue, we began requiring students to design their own experiment to perform with the given lab equipment, which included analysis of independent, dependent, &amp; control variables and development of a set of experimental procedures. Students would complete this exercise in the first half hour of the lab session, producing a handwritten document that contained their proposed experimental procedures. However, to satisfy the primary goal, students were still assigned a recipe to use for their hands‐on experimental work. Informal observation of student behavior under these conditions suggested that their interest in the lab work was poor: that they were not engaging intellectually in their experimental work, and that each group of students frequently had multiple disengaged members.

These observations motivated us to deprioritize the goal of demonstrating mechanics principles experimentally. Instead of following a recipe, students have been given freedom to design and perform their own experiments by using the equipment provided to satisfy a given set of objectives. Informal observations by teaching assistants indicated marked improvement in student engagement and relatively low rate of failed experiments.

This paper reports on a study designed to formalize the observations of the difference in student engagement between labs where a recipe is provided and labs for which students are only allowed to use their own experimental design. Lab sections were randomly assigned to complete each style of labs. Where possible, TAs taught students under both treatment methods. Lab sessions were videotaped so that student behaviors can be observed and coded for formal analysis. A “challenge” lab exercise was administered to assess whether the differing treatment results in improved analyses during the data acquisition stage of the experiment. Diagnostic midterm exam questions were given to assess whether critical thinking skills are affected by the difference in lab treatment.
AU - Blake Everett Johnson
AU - Jason W Morphew
CY - New Orleans, Louisiana
DA - 2016/06/26
PB - ASEE Conferences
TI - An Analysis of Recipe-based Instruction in an Introductory Fluid Mechanics Laboratory
UR - https://peer.asee.org/26564
DO - 10.18260/p.26564
ER -