So in a sense the question here is: Do students who exhibit specific difficulties in de-scribing rigid body motion at the beginning of Statics exhibit specific difficulties in assessingequilibrium at the beginning or end of Statics? If so, might identifying these students at the startof Statics allow the instructor(s) to more effectively address these students’ expected challengesand give those students a better chance of exiting Statics with a consistent and correct approachto assessing equilibrium? This work attempts to answer the first of these two questions.MethodologyTo test the notion that understanding a dynamic rigid body gives a better foundation for under-standing a static rigid body, students complete a pair of simple questions
11 cases, or 82%) employed a One-Shot Case Study design in which only a single group of students were involved (that is with no comparison group).9) The data collection methods used in the 11 studies included questionnaires (100%, n = 11), content analysis of students’ comments (36%), and scores of performance tests (quizzes) (21%).AcknowledgementsThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No.DUE 1122654.Bibliography[1] Michau F., Gentil S., & Barrault M., 2001, “Expected Benefits of Web-Based Learning for Engineering Education: Examples in Control Engineering,” European Journal of Engineering Education, 26 (2), pp. 151- 168.[2] Cornwell, P. J
Analogy: A View from Case-Based Reasoning," AmericanPsychologist, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 1-10, 1997.[3] J. Dannenhoffer and J. Dannenhoffer, "Development of an on-line system to help students successfullysolve statics problems," in American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference andExposition, Austin, TX, June 14-17, 2009.[4] M. DeVore, Statics Tutor, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 2000.[5] J. Iano, Shaping Structures: Statics, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1998.[6] ISDC, "BEST Statics," [Online]. Available: http://web.mst.edu/~bestmech/preview_statics.html.[7] E. Anderson, R. Taraban and S. Roberstson, "M-Model: A Mental Model based Online HomeworkTool," Journal of Online Engineering Education, vol. 1, no. 2, 2010.[8] J. Lux and B
, no statistically significantdifferences are found. However, the low overall utilization of the resource may be masking thepotentially significant difference between the two treatments seen in the high-access group.This investigation into homework solution format, as well as best-practices with regards toencouraging student use of the resource, will continue. Specifically, investigations are planned tostudy if providing students with a worked-out-homework solution (from a similar but notassigned problem) before the assignment is due is a more effective intervention than providingsolutions after the due date.Bibliographic Information[1] Steif, P. S., and Dantzler, J. A. (2005). “A Statics Concept Inventory: Development and Psychometric
Page 23.843.4understanding the appropriate conditions under which a fatigue model may be applied. Table 1. Results from tensile test of fatigue specimen material Published [8] Experimental Difference (%) E (ksi) 29,000 28,670 1.2% Su (psi) 70,300 92,000 24% Sy(psi) 60,200 77,000 18% %RA 40% 40% 0 1.E+05 Alternating Stress, S (psi) Experimental
Page 23.856.11data, descriptive statistics for each of the confidence categories were calculated overall andwithin-samples paired t-tests were performed based on the cohort of students who fullycompleted both the pre- and post- attitudinal surveys. The data shown were taken from theoriginal 5-point Likert scale, normalized and converted to 0-1.00 for the sake of reporting (e.g. 0corresponds with all 1’s or low ratings for that category, 0.5 corresponds with all 3’s or middleratings for that category, 1.00 corresponds with all 5’s or high ratings for that category). 190 outof 200 students completed the Pre-Survey, while 163 students completed the Post-Survey,resulting in 152 complete datasets (some students completed the Pre-Survey who did not
Integrated Approach to Designing College Courses, Jossey-Bass Imprint, John Wiley and Sons (2003) 2. Ambrose, S., Bridges, M.W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M.C., Norman, M.K., (2010). How Learning Works: Seven Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching. Jossey-Bass, pp. 1. 3. Bergmann, J., Overmyer, J., Wilie, B., (2012) The Flipped Class: Myths vs. Reality, The Daily Riff, April 14, 2012. Accessed online: http://www.thedailyriff.com/articles/the- flipped-class-conversation-689.php 4. Weinstein, C.E., Meyer, D.K., Husman, J., McKeachie, W.J. & Svinicki, M. (2011). “Teaching Students How to Become More Strategic and Self-Regulated Learners,” in McKeachie’s Teaching Tips: Strategies, Research and Theory for
Education, 94, pp. 121-130.[4] Estrada, T., Atwood, S.A., 2012, “Factors that Affect Student Frustration Level in Introductory LaboratoryExperiences,” AC2012-4382, Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, San Antonio, TX.[5] Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., Ross, G., 1976, “The Role of Tutoring in Problem Solving,” Journal of Psychology andPsychiatry, 17, pp. 89-100.[6] Moll, L.C., 1992, Vygotsky and Education: Instructional Implications and Applications of SociohistoricalPsychology, Cambridge University Press.[7] Grondin, R. O., 2012, “Engineering as a Liberal Discipline: Two, Three or Four Cultures?” AC2012-4586,Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, San Antonio, TX.[8] National Academy of Engineering, 2005, The
: “Threshold concepts, once learned, are likely to bring together different aspects of the subject that previously did not appear, to the student, to be related3.” This is probably the most obvious connection this work due to the inherent need to apply fundamental principles of mathematics and science when solving complex engineering problems. For example, a statics problem may involve trigonometry, vector algebra, and Newton‟s second law of motion. Transformative: Threshold concepts are “akin to a portal, opening up a new and previously inaccessible way of thinking about something . . . it represents a transformed way of understanding, or interpreting, or viewing . . . without which the learner cannot
develop proper conceptual understanding. Ourengineering students seemed motivated by the experiments, and a great deal of good discussioncould be heard as we walked around the room. In future work, we hope to ascertain exactlywhen students seem to understand the concepts, and the exact components necessary to make aneffective inquiry-based learning activity for dynamics.Acknowledgements: Support for this work was funded by the National Science Foundation,NSF 1044282, Using Inquiry-Based Activities to Repair Student Misconceptions in EngineeringDynamics. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in thismaterial are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NationalScience Foundation
. Additional questions were asked to probe their understanding, such aswhy a solid post is not used, why it is (apparently) sufficient to study stress at the base of thepole an nowhere else, and which load(s) is (are) most influential in driving the design (including,in particular, whether the weight of the post itself is significant in this sense). Figure 5 shows anannotated image of the spreadsheet that student can use for Module 3. Page 23.866.6 wind x wind y wt sign Param x1 z1 b2 h1 h2 Wx2 Fy1
ability that experienced engineers possess. “Most students do not find statics to be conceptually difficult, but are often overwhelmed by the myriad of small decisions that they must get correct if they are going to successfully solve a problem. Too often, this causes a student to question if he/she should continue to study engineering. The key idea implemented in ARCHIMEDES is a just-in-time feedback process for enhanced learning of problem- solving strategies.”7 The system divides the problems into steps that would logically be taken. For example, the first step in many statics problems is drawing a free-body diagram(s). Page
other ideas to help move a classroom away from a directlecture format.References 1. Hake, R., “Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses” American Journal of Physics, 66, 64 (1998); doi: 10.1119/1.18809 2. Smith, K. A., Sheppard, S. D., Johnson, D. W. and Johnson, R. T. (2005), “Pedagogies of Engagement: Classroom-Based Practices. Journal of Engineering Education:, 94: 87–101. doi: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00831.x 3. Chickering, A.W., and Gamson, Z.F., “Seven Principles for Good Practice in Higher Education,” American Association for Higher Education Bulletin, Vol. 39, 1987, pp. 3–7. 4. R.C. Hibbeler, Engineering
teaching and learning, and encompasses a wide range of file types (examples: videoand audio files in Quicktime or MP4, Matlab .m files, java applets, PDF files, etc.). The specificsof each multimedia asset depend upon context; we currently have files spanning a range ofdifferent teaching and learning tools, including: (i) lecture videos, (ii) video problem solutions,(iii) simulations/animations, (iv) Matlab .m files and other executables, (v) text-based resources inPDF. Many others are possible and the EGP can admit these and many other file types.Learning “content” is, however, not enough; we want students to understand the relationshipsamong seemingly disparate pieces of content. Since at least the 1970’s, there have been persistentcalls 5;6;7
gains Page 23.433.11over the course of the semester, and work to address the ongoing challenges described above.Also, the labs must be implemented to the online delivery of the course. The online mechanicsof materials course is currently being developed and the first offering, including these labs, willoccur in an upcoming semester.Bibliography 1. Allen, I. Elaine and Seaman, Jeff, Class Differences: Online Education in the United States, 2010, Babson Survey Research Group, November 2010. 2. Fisher, F., Hadim, H., Esche, S., Ubell, R., and Chassapis, C. "Feasibility of a fully online undergraduate mechanical engineering