ignored the significantdifferences-in-kind between researchers’ and instructors’ knowledge. Upon reflection it is asmall leap from the constructivism we hope to apply in our classrooms to a more collaborativemodel of curricular innovation and adoption.References1. Brown, S. A. & Montfort, D. B. Curricular Materials and Methods for Student Conceptual Understanding in Mechanics of Materials. in Annu. Conf. Am. Soc. Eng. Educ. (2013). Page 26.1085.62. Brown, S. A., Findley, K. & Montfort, D. B. Student Understanding of States of Stress in Mechanics of Materials. in Proc. Am. Soc. Eng. Educ. Annu. Conf. (2007). at 3
the students if they value it, and if theyvalue it with respect to how it is being used. Certainly, there is literature backing both sides ofthe coin; for and against, online systems and traditional homework methods [3], [4], [7]–[9],[11]. Students however, are clearly asking for both, and indicate that both will probably behelpful. Similar hybrid approaches have proven to be successful in other disciplines [14]. Maybewe should ask them to eat their vegetables alongside their ice cream!References[1] M. F. Schar, A. M. Harris, R. J. Witt, R. Rice, and S. D. Sheppard, “Connecting for Success; The Impact of Student-to-Other Closeness on Performance in Large-Scale Engineering Classes,” p. 23, 2016.[2] J. L. Davis and T. McDonald, “Can
described in this paper, we devised special courseassignments: we gave a group problem to the students in a given course on the first day of classand organized students in groups of three or four, depending on the size of the class. Groupingsof students were alphabetical, based on the first letter of their last names. The student at the topof each grouping was designated the convener and leader of the group. Students were asked tomeet weekly and work collaboratively to solve the assigned problem(s) as a group and to submitone report of their work as a group on the last day of class, which is about one week before theday of the final exam. This report was worth 10% of the course grade. Students were encouragedto collaborate on other assignments, as
- Engineering Statics 0.238 0.303 Engineering 0.301 0.437 DynamicsFor both classes that have prerequisites, the addition of prerequisite grade(s) to the model withNCA factors and traditional measures as predictors is a statistically significant improvement(partial F-test p-value < 0.001).Discussion and ConclusionLooking at the models using NCA factors as predictors of engineering grades, we can see thatthere are clear patterns in how the factors influence success. Many of the NCA factors aremalleable, so understanding these patterns is a crucial step towards introducing initiatives in theclassroom to help students reach their full potential. The
education," 2008.[2] National Academy of Engineering, "Educating the Engineer of 2020: Adapting Engineering Education to the New Century," National Academies Press, 2005.[3] A. M. Ogilvie, D. B. Knight, M. Borrego, A. A. Fuentes, P. A. Nava and V. E. Taylor, "Transfer Student Pathways to Engineering Degrees: A Multi-Institutional Study Based in Texas," in 45th Annual Frontiers in Education (FIE) Conference, El Paso, TX, 2015.[4] National Research Council, "Enhancing the community college pathway to engineering careers," The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2005.[5] M. W. Ohland, S. D. Sheppard, G. Lichtenstein, O. Eris, D. Chachra and R. Layton, "Persistence, Engagement and Migration in engineering Programs," Journal of
. Surveyresponse data was converted to a 100-point scale such that a response of all 3’s would yield anormalized score of 100% and a response of all 1’s would yield a normalized score of 0% asfollows: 𝑀𝑒𝑎𝑛𝑆𝑢𝑟𝑣𝑒𝑦𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑒 − 1 𝑁𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑧𝑒𝑑𝑆𝑢𝑟𝑣𝑒𝑦𝑆𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒 = (100%) 2 100% KS0 KS1 Exam 1 KS2 Exam 2 90% 80% 70%Score (Percent) 60% 50% 40
dividedinto seven modules, each of which covers two weeks. The anatomy of a typical module showsthe main features: Three recitations (Rec. n), one lecture (in the middle of the module), onerehearsal exam (RE), and one module assessment (MA). The recitations and rehearsal exams are75-minute sessions held in smaller rooms. The lecture and module assessment are 50-minutesessions held in a large lecture hall.Recitation. In the recitation periods, the students work through the “problem(s) of the day” ingroups, with the instructor and undergraduate teaching assistants (UGTAs) providing support,asking probing questions, giving advice, and generally activating the learning environment, asneeded. The recitation problems advance the learning objectives of the
, pp. 14.119.1 - 14.119.10, 2009.[3] B. C. James, W. H. Goodridge, and C. Green, “Strategy, Task Performance, and Behavioral Themes from Students Solving 2-D and 3-D Force Equilibrium Problems,” in 2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Seattle, Washington, 2015, pp. 26.1405.1 - 26.1405.15: ASEE, 2015.[4] P. S. Steif and M. Hansen, “Comparisons Between Performances in a Statics Concept Inventory and Course Examinations,” International Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 1070-1076, 20 November 2005 2006.[5] K. Higley, T. Litzinger, P. Van Meter, C. B. Masters, and J. Kulikowich, “Effects Of Conceptual Understanding, Math And Visualization Skills On Problem Solving In
the FBD instrument to be given in fall of 2017.Bibliography1. Gentner, D, & Stevens, A. L. (1983) Mental models, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.2. Reference (added once final information is included)3. Duit, R. (2009). Bibliography – Students' and teachers' conceptions and science education (STCSE), Retrieved January 17, 2011, from http://www.ipn.uni-kiel.de/aktuell/stcse/stcse4. Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30(3): 141- 151.5. Danielson, S., Kadlowec, J., Mehta, S., Masters, C., Magill, M., and Steadman, S. (2005). Work in progress – A statics skills inventory. Proceedings of the 2005 Frontiers in Education Conference.6. Steif, P. (2004
., & Rogers, C. (2010). The benefits of model building in teaching engineering design. Design Studies, 31(3), 288-309. 3. Steif, P. S., & Dantzler, J. A. (2005). A Statics Concept Inventory: Development and Psychometric Analysis. Journal Of Engineering Education, 94(4), 363-371. 4. Steif, P. S., & Hansen, M. A. (2006). Comparisons between performances in a statics concept inventory and course examinations. International Journal Of Engineering Education, 22, 1070-1076. 5. Steif, P. S., & Hansen, M. A. (2007). New practices for administering and anlyzing the results of concept inventories. Journal Of Engineering Education, 96(3), 205-212. 6. Dollár, A., & Steif, P. S. (2006). Learning
, M. (2006). Using Podcasts as Audio Learning Objects. . Interdisciplinary .Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 2(1), 47-57.Center for the Study of Student Life . (March 2015 ). Comparing On-Campus, Off-Campus, and Commuter Students. Ohio: The Ohio State University.Driscoll, S. A., & Garcia, C. E. (2000). Preferred Learning Styles for Engineering Students. ASEE Annual Conference. St. Louis, MO, USA. Retrieved from https://peer.asee.org/8639Felder, S., & Spurlin, J. (2005). Applicaitions, Relaibility, Validity of the Index o Learing Styles. INternational Journal of ENgineering Education, 21(1), 103-112.Grosse, C. S., & Renkl, A. (2007). Finding and fixing errors in worked examples: can this
, “Conceptual and Procedural Approaches to Mathematics in the Engineering Curriculum: Student Conceptions and Performance,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 101, no. 1, pp. 138–162, 2012.[3] R. A. Streveler, T. A. Litzinger, R. L. Miller, and P. S. Steif, “Learning Conceptual Knowledge in the Engineering Sciences: Overview and Future Research Directions,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 97, no. 3, pp. 279–294, 2008.[4] T. J. Moore, R. L. Miller, R. A. Lesh, M. S. Stohlmann, and Y. R. Kim, “Modeling in Engineering: The Role of Representational Fluency in Students' Conceptual Understanding,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 102, no. 1, pp. 141–178, 2013.[5] B. P. Self, J. M. Widmann, and G. C. Adam, “Increasing
, rational and Competency easy to follow solution process, including required diagrams and figures 80% Incorrect answer due to one or two mechanical errors but supported by a correct solution process as described above Does Not Meet Mini- 0% Incorrect answer due to conceptual or procedural error(s) mum CompetencyTable 2: Timeline for exam grading, regrading, and retakes for the midterm exams for the experi-mental section. Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Version A Grades Regrade Regrade results posted;Week I (evening) posted
surveyed on their perception of the effectiveness of the CW. Cohort 1was polled as the course was ending while Cohorts 2 and 3 were emailed a survey link at thebeginning of the following semester. Cohort 1 had a 100% response rate with all 14 studentswhile Cohorts 2 and 3 were emailed a survey link that yielded 116 responses, 34% of theenrollment. Cohort 1 responded to a prompt that included all teaching exercises utilized by theinstructor while Cohorts 2 and 3 responded to the following prompt which asks about the CWspecifically. Tables 2 and 3 chart the breakdown of the responses. Table 2 is a reflection ofCohort 1’s response to the CW, specifically with a rating of 4.1/5.0. Cohorts 2 and 3 were notpolled separately and are shown combined in
Teaching, 41(1), pp. 30-35.[4] Bland, L. (2006) “Applying flip/inverted classroom model in electrical engineering to establish life-longlearning.” Proc. American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, Chicago, IL.[5] Shibley, I., and Wilson, T. (2012) “The flipped classroom: rethinking the way you teach.” Magna OnlineSeminar presented at Memorial University, St. John’s, NL.[6] Holdhusen, M. (2015) “A ‘flipped’ statics classroom.” Proc. American Society for Engineering EducationAnnual Conference, Seattle, WA.[7] Velegol, S. et al. (2015) “The evolution of a flipped classroom: evidence-based recommendations.” ASEEAdvances in Engineering Education, Winter 2015.[8] Swithenback, S., and DeNucci, T. (2014) “Using a “Flipped Classroom
complex problems, because you can only talk to yourself so much before you need someone else's input to really make a breakthrough on a problem.”Table 2 - Students’ suggestions for setting up environments to create optimal interactions Suggestion Freq. Example(s) Creating an 22 “I think that setting up an environment that doesn’t just cater to one “type” of inclusive person is the most important aspect of this. Not every person fits into the same environment, box, so why should they have to work in an environment that isn’t
, “The Theory Underlying Concept Maps and How to Construct and Use Them,” Technical Report Cmap Tools 2006-01 Rev 01-2008, 2008.[2] J. C. Nesbit and O. O. Adesope, “Learning With Concept and Knowledge Maps: A Meta-Analysis,” Review of Educational Research, vol. 76, no. 3, pp. 413 –448, 2006.[3] J. Clement, “Students’ Preconceptions in Introductory Mechanics,” American Journal of Physics, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 66–71, 1982.[4] D. Montfort, S. Brown, and D. Pollock, “An Investigation of Students’ Conceptual Understanding in Related Sophomore to Graduate-Level Engineering and Mechanics Courses,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 98, no. 2, pp. 111–129, Apr. 2009.[5] L. C. McDermott, “Research on conceptual understanding in
first midterm.Table 4: Student Success of Those Who Took the First Test: Didn't take final Took Final Percent Total W F/U Drop D F/U D S C B A PassingFlipped 36 29 13 1 26 63 3 270 487 274 1202 86%CourseOnline-Only 3 4 6 0 2 4 0 11 14 4 48 60%13-14Online-Only 0 3 0 0 6 8 0 20 21 8 66 74%14-15* W = withdrew from the class, S & U = successful or unsuccessful
tr e S d o M Preference Figure 3: Distribution of the learning styles for female students in ENGG 349.same as the male students. However, the data suggests that 10% more of the males are active andvisual learners than are the females. In a comparative study of engineering students, a verysimilar trend in the differences in learning styles between male and female
work on this topic could: • Gather data on students office hour attendance to extend the analysis to account for the effects of office hour attendance. • Tracking the grades of students who attended study sessions in future courses and identifying students who completed the Environmental Resource Engineering degree. • Collecting more data to better represent all categories of students. • Hold instructor led study sessions in an informal location to compare the effect the room has on the attendance of these sessions.These additions will benefit the analysis used to determine if the transformation of office hours toinstructor led study sessions positively impact the completion of STEM programs.References [1] M. Komarraju, S
Mechanical Engineering Design”, 10th Edition, McGraw Hill 2016.[3]. Brown, S., & Montfort, D., & Findley, K. (2007, June), Student Understanding Of States Of Stress In Mechanics Of Materials Paper presented at 2007 Annual Conference & Exposition, Honolulu, Hawaii.[4]. Brown, S., & Lewis, D. (2010, June), Student Understanding Of Normal And Shear Stress And Deformations In Axially Loaded Members Paper presented at 2010 Annual Conference & Exposition, Louisville, Kentucky.[5]. Coyle, M., & Keel, C. (2001, June), A Combined Stress Experiment Using A Hacksaw Paper presented at 2001 Annual Conference, Albuquerque, New Mexico.[6]. Szaroletta, W. (2002, June), Enhancing Learning Opportunities In A Combined
. Sahin, M. (2010) “The Impact of Problem-Based Learning on Engineering Students' Beliefs About Physics and Conceptual Understanding of Energy and Momentum,” European Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 35, No. 5. 7. Albanese, M.A. and Mitchell, S. (1993) “Problem-Based Learning: A Review of Literature on Its Outcomes and Implementation Issues,” Academic Medicine, Vol. 68. 8. Yaeger, P.M., Marra, R.M., Gray, M.G.L., and Costanzo, F. (1999) “Assessing New Ways of Teaching Dynamics: An Ongoing Program to Improve Teaching, Learning, and Assessment,” Proceedings of the 1999 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition. 9. Woods, D. R. (1996) “Problem-Based Learning for Large Classes in
Proceedings, Indianapolis, IN, 2014.4. Thomas, Jeffery S. and Philpot, Timothy A., “An Inverted Teaching Model for a Mechanics of Materials Course,” 2012 ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, San Antonio, TX, 2012.5. Cavalli, Matthew, Neubert, Jeremiah J., McNally, Dustin, and Jacklitch-Kuiken, Debbie, “Comparison of Student Performance and Perceptions across Multiple Course Delivery Modes,” 2014 ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, Indianapolis, IN, 2014.6. Swartz, Brian, Butler Velegol, Stephanie, and Laman, Jeffrey A., “Three Approaches to Flipping CE Courses: Faculty Perspectives and Suggestions,” 2013 ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, Atlanta, GA, 2013
/Hybrid-Teaching-Seeks-to/18487[12] Everett JW, Morgan, JK, Stanzione III JF. “A Hybrid Flipped First Year Engineering Course.” Proceedings ofthe ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Indianapolis, IN, June, 2014[13] Riffell S, Sibley D. “Using web-based instruction to improve large undergraduate biology courses: Anevaluation of a hybrid course format.” Computers & Education, Vol. 44, No. 3, 217-235, 2005[14] Means B, Toyama Y, Murphy R, Bakia M, Jones K. “Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in OnlineLearning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies.” U.S. Department of Education, Office ofPlanning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service, Washington D.C., 2010[15] Allen DE, Duch BJ, Groh SE