throughoutthe semester (before, during, after), homework grade data, and exam grade data. Studentengagement increased 17% in Cohort 2022 compared to 2021, which validated the support forusing chat and polling. Students reported in polling that they needed the lean methodology moreas the semester progressed even though homework performance wasn’t positively impacted. Itwas also found that students relied on the lean methodology to complete the midterm and finalexams. An analysis of both HW 1 and HW 2 revealed a statistically significant performancebenefit in homework assignments by using the lean methodology with a moderate to large effect.EFL students, engineering, pedagogy, efficacyIntroductionAn English as a foreign language (EFL) student is a
ofexperiential learning empowers students to apply theoretical knowledge in real-world scenarios,thereby deepening their comprehension of complex engineering concepts [1]. This approacheffectively bridges the gap between theory and practice.To cater to diverse learning preferences, facilitate visualization, promote real-world applications,and implement experiential learning, a variety of methods have been integrated over the pastdecade in this course. These methods include augmented reality (AR), discussions using real-world example pictures, and interactions with physical models—both through studentengagement and instructor demonstrations.Research has indicated that some students may not fully demonstrate their learning within theconstraints of
Inventory, and he is a co-author of Vector Mechanics for Engineers: Dynamics, by Beer, Johnston, Cornwell, and Self. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2024 Work in Progress: A Rigid Body Dynamics Concept InventoryIntroduction The Dynamics Concept Inventory (DCI) has been around for over 20 years [1], [2], [3], [4].Since its release, it has been both downloaded over 150 times and used by faculty through the ConceptWarehouse website [1]. The DCI started out as a paper-only version using a locked PDF and an answerkey that had to be requested from the authors. In the 20 years since, the DCI has been added to theConcept Warehouse where faculty can deploy it and get student response
elements of deliberate practice are: (1) motivation, (2) intentional plan ofpractice, (3) repetition, and (4) timely feedback. We assign homework to provide students withrepetitive, intentionally designed practice opportunities, but ensuring that students receive timely,effective feedback is resource-intensive and does not scale well to large classes. In addition, ourexperience with traditional homework grading suggests that many students do not even viewdetailed feedback when it is provided. One solution to both problems is for students to grade theirown homework assignments.Direct evidence of effectiveness of student-grading for learning is scant, but suggests thatself-grading is more effective than peer-grading for achieving learning objectives
way to evaluate student understanding of material and as a tool toevaluate teaching [1]. Concept inventories have been developed for subjects such as Physics, [2], Statics[3], [4], Dynamics [5] , Strength of Materials [6], Heat Transfer [7] and many other topics [8]. At times,students can matriculate through classes based on procedural efficiency because they are good at knowinghow to solve different types of problems; yet, they may still not have a good conceptual grasp of thematerial in question even by the time they graduate. Some work has also been done to make correlationsbetween concept inventory and course performance [9], [10], [11]. Even more challenging is assessing student’s actual thought process at the time they are
are well documented. At our institution, students often fail thecourse multiple times, delaying their graduation or even demotivating them to pursueengineering. We postulate that students taking it multiple times may not get much out of havingmaterial presented in the same basic linear fashion. To help counter this issue of multiplefailures, we offered an invitation-only section to students who had previously received a D, F, W(withdrew) or I (incomplete) in the preceding two quarters. The goals of this project were: 1) toprovide the opportunity for students to immediately re-enroll after not passing and 2) to try andprevent students from failing ME212 multiple times by providing a section that focusses onconceptual understanding and problem
courses that continue to be taught in a lecture-based environment. UndergraduateDynamics is one of the standard engineering courses for many engineering majors where thecontent is well established and has not changed in decades; however, the implementation ofdifferent teaching styles has had an impact on the way the material is presented and covered in theclass. Through discussion amongst three instructors at different universities with different teachingstyles they discovered notable differences in how each instructor writes, solves, and evaluates theircourse problems in undergraduate Dynamics. The three teaching styles include (1) a flipped,recitation-based classroom that uses a mastery-based derivation approach to solving problems, (2)a
objectives on theunderstand level of Bloom’s taxonomy and multiple-choice questions for learning objectives onthe analyze level are shown to moderately achieve this goal. The feedback loop between studentsand instructor was instrumental in determining how to best use class time to support studentlearning. Recommendations for best practices, including how ChatGPT can be leveraged toquickly summarize student responses, based on the instructor’s experience and student feedback,are given.IntroductionStudies have shown that students who read assigned textbook sections before coming to classfind it beneficial for their learning. They have also shown that today’s engineering studentsrarely read the textbook [1]. Just-In-Time-Teaching (JiTT) is a pedagogy
high visualizers.Based on our findings, we infer that activities involving physical manipulatives and/or virtual 3Dmodels may improve conceptual understanding for low visualizers, including the development ofhands-on lab experiments.IntroductionEngineers need to be able to visualize a problem by formulating a schematic, a model, or anequation to analyze and solve. In statics, for example, sketching an appropriate free body diagram(FBD) is a critical step in the solution process. Spatial visualization skills (SVS) may play a criticalrole in developing the FBD properly [1]. Many concepts in statics rely on the ability to visualizethe effects of various force vectors on the equilibrium of an object. An accurate understanding ofthe direction of
provide a potential use for it.This work-in-progress paper describes the motivation and development process of these labs, aswell as preliminary lab examples and planned assessment.There is substantial discussion in the engineering community about the importance of includingill-structured problems into curriculum within engineering education, as these problems betterrepresent the experiences post-graduation [1]–[7]. However, past work has found that textbookproblems are rarely ill-structured in form and that students may be rarely exposed to ill-structured problems within their engineering curriculum [1], [2], [5]. One area in which ill-structured problems are easier to incorporate are within lab experiences. Student laboratoryexperiences are
through reflection. Reflection provides students with anopportunity to revisit their work, assign meaning to the experience, and guide their future actions[1]. The National Academies has called for more “opportunities for reflection to connect thinkingand doing, and to [develop] students’ metacognitive abilities to foster self-directed, lifelonglearning skills [2]. Implementing opportunities to reflect promote the students to critically reviewtheir work and process the outcome to further encourage their learning. Reflective exercises alsohave a rich detail of the students understanding, experience, and their process used during theassessment exercise. This insight can complement the student scores and inform an instructor ofstudent ability often
at the Engineering Pedagogy and Design Lab, with the work of processing and analyzing data collected from de-identified survey responses as well as coursework evaluations, to achieve various research purpose.Trevor Keoki Oshiro, University of California, San DiegoChangkai Chen, University of California, San Diego ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2024 Using scaffolded exams and post-exam reflection to foster students’ metacognitive regulation of learning in a Mechanics of Materials classIntroductionMetacognition is the awareness and control of thinking for learning [1]. Strong metacognitiveskills wield significant influence over student learning outcomes and performance [2], [3], [4
considered the most crucial, serving as a prerequisite for all other engineering mechanicscourses and, consequently, most downstream courses within engineering programs.Even though Statics is recognized as a critical course, student performance is typically regardedas poor [1]. In particular, basic learning objectives such as proficiency in drawing accurate freebody diagrams or accurately solving equations of equilibrium remain unfulfilled. Some of theseissues are recognized to originate from lack of geometry, trigonometry, and algebra skills,however, many are unique to the subject of Statics and due to conceptual misunderstandings.Additionally, a poor performance in Statics is shown to be directly correlated to student’s finalcumulative GPA and
for Engineering Education and the Aerospace Medical Association. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2024 Thinking Outside the Box: Understanding Students Thinking on Statics in Mechanics (a work in progress)Student-centered pedagogy requires instructors to engage deeply with student thinking, asopposed to didactically prescribing one correct problem-solving algorithm [1]. In this work, weexplore student understanding of friction forces in the context of static equilibrium in amechanics class, a course with which students often struggle [2]. To improve the learningexperience of these students, we first had a large set of students (232) provide writtenexplanations of their
first of many STEM courses that all students, both engineeringand non-engineering majors, are required to take at USAFA. For this study, students were givena mindset questionnaire the first week of class and at the end of the course. It was hoped thatstudents’ experiences in the course would help them develop a stronger growth mindset.Unfortunately, the students’ average mindset rating actually decreased from the pre-class to thepost-class questionnaire. What still needs to be investigated, however, is whether this result isdue to students’ fatigue at the end of the semester or due to some other reason.IntroductionPsychologist Carol Dweck developed the concept of a “fixed” and a “growth” mindset [1].According to Dweck, a mindset is a self
machinekinematics and dynamics courseIntroductionResearchers have recently identified past failure as an “essential prerequisite” for future success [1].Developing course structures to promote productive failure has received considerable interest inengineering education community. Failures during the undergraduate curriculum can help studentsbuild resiliency, humility and grit. However, persistence through failure is only productive if students arecapable of learning from their past failures [1, 2]. Unfortunately, the high stakes assessments typicallyused in traditional courses do not give students the opportunity to practice productive failure ordemonstrate an ability to learn from their mistakes. As a result, students prioritize earning “goodgrades
barriers exist for minoritized students in a solid mechanicscourse?Sampling for this project included 50 students who took the course during the Fall 2021-Spring2023 academic years. The case study unit is the students who took the course at this time with thesame teaching assistant.Literature ReviewFor the purposes of this study, we explored literature related to second and third-year engineeringcourses and the success of minoritized engineering students. Literature shows that successfulengineers require a diverse range of knowledge and skills that extend beyond what is typicallytaught in engineering programs [1]. Future engineers should have professional practiceopportunities in real-world team-based settings to become collaborative and
continued use of multiple-choice tests in many courses. Specifically, inengineering courses that are heavy on problem-solving, the use of multiple-choice tests still happenas they are a route to offer quick, quantifiable results about something in that course. However,exactly what that something is and what the results represent has been debated for many years.Engineering has used multiple-choice tests in a variety of contexts. These include conceptinventory tests, course exams, and diagnostic testing. Multiple-choice tests (MCT), if the answersare well written to include quality distractors, can be a valuable form of assessment in STEMcourses [1]. There has been a high correlation between MCT and student written responses toinstructor exams if the
FGCU have been investigating ways to improve studentperformance in engineering mechanics (statics and dynamics), a required course for studentsmajoring in bioengineering, civil engineering, and environmental engineering. Success in thiscourse is critical to excel in follow-up mechanics courses and upper-level engineering courses.Data has been collected on students’ performance on homework, quizzes and exams, and on thestudents’ thoughts on learning and course delivery. Thus far, it has been concluded that the useof traditional hand-written homework, frequent assessment via quizzes [1] or the PearsonMastering Engineering [2] software for formative assessment did not have a significant impacton students’ performance on exams. It was also
, discusses the survey questions, investigatesthe results, and evaluates its impact on student understanding of the equilibrium of rigid bodiesin 3D.BackgroundStatics is a prerequisite course in most engineering disciplines such as mechanical, civil,aeronautical, and even bioengineering [1]. The concepts introduced in the course serve asfoundational knowledge for courses like Dynamics and Strength of Materials. Therefore, it iscrucial for engineering educators to utilize the best strategies that enhance student learning.Danielson and Hinks investigated the perception of Statics educators on the most importantStatics skills and their estimation of students’ proficiency in performing the skills. A skillinventory was created using a multi-step Delphi
learning. In addition, the instructors presentsurvey results on how students perceive the effectiveness of graphical methods in their learning of vectoranalysis.1. IntroductionEssentially all presentations of vector operations in engineering courses are accompanied by “head to tail”diagrams that illustrate the concept of vector addition or resultants. The resulting laws of vector additionare then shown - visually - to follow the laws of triangular geometry and trigonometry. While most, if notall, textbooks provide geometrically accurate figures (i.e., the illustrations depict vectors with accuratelymeasured lengths and angles) most treatments emphasize how to express vectors algebraically and toperform corresponding calculations. It is therefore
for some students.This is because opportunities to practice drawing FBDs have traditionally been in the context ofhomework, using problems sourced from a textbook. This type of learning environment suffersfrom drawbacks because (1) the process of drawing FBDs is not scaffolded into discrete tasks(e.g. isolating the body), (2) the ability to practice only a particular task is not possible, and (3)feedback is not immediate. The lack of immediate feedback is a particularly important issue, asimmediate feedback is necessary to prevent students from reinforcing bad practices and has beenshown to be an important factor in learning [1,2].Although learning to reliably draw accurate FBDs is difficult for most students, women may beat a disadvantage
to visualize 2x2 and 3x3 matrices by Christian Otto Mohr in thelate 1800’s, Mohr’s circle has since become a foundational, visual tool for mechanics studentsworking to understand the stresses at play at derived points in materials [1]. Undergraduateengineering students are commonly introduced to Mohr’s circle in their Mechanics of Materialsclass as an analytical tool included in the lessons on stress transformations. The basic idea behindMohr’s circle is that normal and shear stresses on a plane within a material depend on theorientation of that plane [2]. Through graphical representation, Mohr’s circle simplifies theprocess of reorienting a given planar section of material to obtain the normal and shear stresses atthe new orientation. It
understanding of mechanical vibration theory, we created two analytical-type designprojects. These two design projects are “The design check of a beam under a harmonic excitingforce” and “The vibration isolation and absorber”. They are meaningful mechanical designprojects in which the mechanical vibration theory is implemented. This paper presents the twoprojects, and their implementation and shows the class survey results. Most students agreed thatthe class design projects significantly facilitated them to have a beter understanding of mechanicalvibra�on theory and helped them to establish the connec�on between mechanical vibra�on theory andits applica�ons and the class design projects should be kept for the mechanical vibra�on course in thefuture.1
learning.IntroductionProblem-based learning (PBL) has gained significant traction in recent decades as an alternativeto the traditional learning paradigm of the student being lectured on a concept, memorizing it, andsubsequently working through assigned problems to understand how to use it. In PBL, groups ofstudents work collaboratively under the guidance of an instructor to resolve complex, realisticproblems 1 . While PBL has its roots in the training of medical students, the framework that itprovides fits well with the open-ended and design-oriented nature of many engineering fields. Infact, problem-based learning has been incorporated in teaching courses as varied as constructiontechniques 2 , engineering thermodynamics 3 , and multi-core programming 4 , just to
. IntroductionVectors refer to parameters that possess two independent properties, namely, magnitude anddirection. Vectors can be represented in both mathematical and geometric forms, and arecommonly used to quantify physical phenomena such as position, electromagnetic fields, force,velocity, and weight [1-4]. Students typically first encounter vector mechanics in a physicscourse at either the high school or college level. Vector mechanics may be regarded as athreshold concept [5] because, once a student masters them, it marks a transformationalmilestone in the student's ability to understand critical knowledge necessary for subsequentlearning at higher levels [6]. Accordingly, undergraduate engineering students subsequentlyencounter vectors again in
, including engineering sketches like Free Body Diagrams. This paper approaches theidea of using automated grading in conjunction with the SMART pedagogical methodology.SMARTThe supported mastery assessment through repeated testing (SMART) model discouragesineffective studying habits such as problem memorization and copying of homework solutionsfrom various sources such as online sources, solution manuals, and friends [1]. Not only does itdiscourage bad learning habits, it has also been shown to improve student understanding andproblem-solving ability by encouraging students to better understand theory and concepts whichcan be seen through help room and office hours interactions with students [2,3]. While somecourse dependent modifications may be
highly valued [1-5].These problems students face when tasked with transferring knowledge have been citedpreviously by various authors. In particular, the (in)ability of students to utilize fundamentalconcepts they learned in mathematics and physics in the context of thermodynamics have beendescribed by both the mathematics and physics communities [6-9]. In these studies, studentswere shown to have only a cursory understanding of the core math and physics concepts at playto view these ideas as isolated elements lacking connections to other aspects of their curriculum.An important conclusion of this work (that was not studied) was the idea of promoting priorknowledge activation as a mechanism for potentially remedying these issues [6].In the field
students’understanding and comprehension of challenging material [1]. The ability to utilize their sensesof sight, touch, and hearing when learning about the behavior of materials and structuresincreases their ability to apply their knowledge. Improving a student’s spatial skills and ability tovisualize complex problems has been shown to improve retention and performance inengineering courses [2]. Hands-on mechanics demonstrations and activities have been utilizedfor decades [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Recently, educators have developed tutorials and databases toassist other educators looking to incorporate these hands-on activities into their own courses [8].Even professional societies such as the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) haveinvested
course. In this paper, we summarize the results of surveys completed by students whohave taken or are currently taking the Statics course to identify the impact of these changes. Inparticular, we defined four different metrics to determine the impact of incorporatingcomputational tools in this course: 1) effectiveness of the computational exercises in buildingPython skills; 2) students’ confidence level in solving statics problems; 3) students’ attitudetowards the importance of computational tools; and 4) students’ satisfaction regarding the revisedcurriculum. Our survey findings show that students feel their computational skills have improvedduring the semester, boosting their confidence in using these skills to solve statics