Paper ID #33822Turning Office Hours into Study Sessions: Impacts on Students’ Homeworkand Exam GradesProf. Liza Boyle, Humboldt State University Dr. Boyle is an Assistant Professor of Environmental Resources Engineering at Humboldt State Uni- versity (HSU), where they have been since 2016. Dr. Boyle received their PhD from the University of Colorado Boulder in 2016 studying dust accumulation on solar panels, and especially the links between airborne particulate concentrations and the impact on solar power output. Since starting at HSU Dr. Boyle has taught a variety of classes across the engineering curriculum, but
at Whatcom Community College since 2012, giving lab support to physics, engineering, and geology, as well as teaching the occasional physics class. Russell’s interests include cre- ating hands on learning tools that encourage active engagement for Physics and Engineering students, and developing classroom demonstrations that confront student misconceptions and create classroom conver- sation.Todd R. Haskell, Western Washington University Todd Haskell is a cognitive scientist interested in learning and the development of expertise, especially in STEM fields. He is currently Associate Professor of Psychology at Western Washington University. In previous projects Dr. Haskell has worked on understanding how chemistry
SALG is an online survey that focuses on the “degree to which a course has enabled studentlearning.” The survey also asks questions to students to determine what specific aspects of thecourse students felt were most impactful to their learning. Students from MRU2 and all URUclasses were given the opportunity to take the SALG as extra credit for the class.One class session from each instructor was observed using the Reformed Teaching ObservationProtocol (RTOP)20,13. RTOP gauges to what extent an instructor is “reformed” based on threefactors: (1) Lesson Design and Implementation, (2) Content (propositional knowledge andprocedural knowledge), (3) Classroom culture (communicative interactions and student/teacherrelationships). Each class was
impact of student-student and instructor-student interaction on the quality of student learningexperience and knowledge acquisition in online courses.The lack of interaction in online teaching is arguably more pronounced in engineering courses,where learning outcomes often involve development of problem solving skills. Active learningactivities - reported by many instructors [2,3,11] to be an effective way to engage students intheir learning process - are seemingly difficult, if not impossible, to implement in an onlineenvironment. The key component of in-class problem solving active learning activities isstudent-student interaction that allows participants to work together towards finding the solutionsto complex problems by sharing ideas
assessed activity byestablishing clear criteria using rubrics for all evaluated activities.Last but not least, by using accessibility features in all the course elements, we were able tosuccessfully target a diverse student population and benefit the learning community as a whole.This paper will also provide the highlights and the rationale behind the selection of theseeducational technology tools and determine how they foster quality course delivery. To bestillustrate course impact on students, we qualitatively and quantitatively analyzed data collectedfrom four different sources, some of them for four consecutive terms regarding grades, students’perception, and developed skills.IntroductionDynamics is a core course in engineering and is usually
a model that is inherent to our research focus. Finding the “right blend” ofinteractivity is challenging yet ultimately provides the richest learning opportunity for bothinstructors and students 32. Our understanding of interactivity draws from the studies of Moore15 , that there are 3 types of interactions commonly identified: learner-instructor, learner-learner,and learner-content.Our focus on the learner-instructor interaction involves engaging a team of 1-2 faculty and 4-6course assistants who are graduate students at the university. Each course assistant is responsiblefor 20-23 students to aid in class discussions, communicate logistics in class as well as betweenclasses, hold face-to-face meetings, and provide frequent feedback in
, a crowd threshold phenomenon occurs,and the classroom comes alive with engagement. Having more than 50 students begins to presentlogistical challenges for the instructional team, but the model will scale to any size provided anadequate number of UGTAs are included.ConclusionThe engaged environment has transformed both how and what we teach in the sophomore-levelmechanics courses. This change has had a significant impact on the mindset, motivation, andproblem-solving abilities of the students who
which solutions were made available as the basic starting point ofproject assignments, integrated with software simulations as outlined in this paper, for the spring2012 offering of the Statics (ENGE 260) course, have had perceptible impact on improvedinterpretation of “wording” of the problems resulting in appropriate analytical set-up andsubsequent trigonometric and algebraic manipulation to solve the problems, among students.The approach has also promoted active and cooperative learning besides providing an avenue forstudents to demonstrate their communication skills through written reports and oralpresentations. From improved interaction with the motivated students during office hours, theauthors are convinced the approach has promoted
- versity. Dr. Talley teaches courses in the Construction Science and Management and Civil Engineering Technology Programs, and her research focus is in student engagement and retention in engineering and engineering technology education. Contact: talley@txstate.eduDr. Julie S. Linsey, Georgia Institute of Technology Dr. Julie S. Linsey is an Associate Professor in the George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineer- ing at the Georgia Institute of Technological. Dr. Linsey received her Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering at The University of Texas. Her research area is design cognition including systematic methods and tools for innovative design with a particular focus on concept generation and design-by-analogy. Her research
occurs when the behavior is motivated by external rewardsor punishments, and amotivation refers to behavior that has no perceived value. A more detaileddescription of Self-Determination Theory can be found in Ryan and Deci [11]. In SDT,internalization, i.e. movement toward more self-determined behavior, is a process [12]. Manybehaviors are not initially intrinsically motivated, but they can become more so if their valuebecomes internalized. “Choice, acknowledgement of feelings, and opportunities for self-direction” all enhance intrinsic motivation [13].Problem-based learning (PBL) is one approach to engaging students more actively. Findingsregarding the impact of PBL have been varied. Sungar and Tekkaya [14] found PBL had apositive effect on
the department to target areas for improvement in the curriculum. This resulted in several publications in this educational research areas. Dr. Al-Hammoud won the ”Ameet and Meena Chakma award for exceptional teaching by a student” in 2014 and the ”Engineering Society Teaching Award” in 2016 from University of Waterloo. Her students regard her as an innovative teacher who continuously introduces new ideas to the classroom that increases their engagement. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2017 Molding the Interactive Flipped Classroom Based on Students’ FeedbackAbstract:Flipped classroom model was widely used as an effective method to change the interaction of thestudents and
, participants work in a collaborativemanner around common themes or goals. They are shaped by a joint enterprise, or domain ofinterest (in our case this is mechanics education) and depend on mutual engagement to help buildrelationships in the community. Finally, the CoP typically develops a shared repertoire, whichmight consist of communal resources and tools, shared activities and ideas, or differentapproaches to teaching. A sustained involvement in a CoP centered around faculty developmentallows participants to develop a sense of community, attempt new teaching practices and discussimplementation with other colleagues, and share different teaching resources.One successful implementation of a community of practice built around developing a student
study groups rather than engaging with the technology as a partner for learning.Some learning outcomes within the course, notably those related rigid body kinematics and rigidbody kinetics (via Newton’s laws), reveal that students perceive high value of the videosregardless of their grade on assignments related to those outcomes. We find significant interplaywith other factors reported on student background surveys, especially their views oncollaboration. The data suggest that peer collaboration and video usage have a mutually-reinforcing effect, with students actively engaged in both earning better grades in the course.IntroductionTechnology-based innovations in engineering education have a long history, and the relativelyrecent maturation of
variations on the exact definition ofinquiry based instruction exist. The NRC4 identifies five critical features of inquiry that extendacross all K-12 levels:1. Learners are engaged by scientifically oriented questions.2. Learners give priority to evidence, which allows them to develop and evaluate explanations that address scientifically oriented questions.3. Learners formulate explanations from evidence to address scientifically oriented questions.4. Learners evaluate their explanations in light of alternative explanations, particularly those reflecting scientific understanding.5. Learners communicate and justify their proposed explanations.Minner et al5 performed a meta-analysis of 138 studies to examine the impact of inquiry basedinstruction
; and the ASME C. D. Mote Jr., Early Career Award. In 2014 Dr. Rhoads was included in ASEE Prism Magazine’s 20 Under 40.Dr. Edward J. Berger, Purdue University-Main Campus, West Lafayette (College of Engineering) Edward Berger is an Associate Professor of Engineering Education and Mechanical Engineering at Purdue University, joining Purdue in August 2014. He has been teaching mechanics for over 20 years, and has worked extensively on the integration and assessment of specific technology interventions in mechanics classes. He was one of the co-leaders in 2013-2014 of the ASEE Virtual Community of Practice (VCP) for mechanics educators across the country. His current research focuses on student problem-solving pro
driven by inductive learning and inquiry.The idea of a learning cycle employed here is a cycle in which the student engages with a formof instruction, performs a related exercise, receives feedback and/or evaluation, and repeats theexercise or a similar one. This includes, but is not limited to, the examples or theories citedabove. For example, learning cycles could be planned and implemented even with deductivelesson styles. Discussion of the relative merits of the forms of pedagogy that best amplifystudent learning is beyond the scope of this article, but the authors consider themselves to bepractitioners of “active learning” strategies. In this article, learning cycles are defined within theuse of an overall Mastery Based Learning3 approach
laboratory styleexperiments at home using these kits will provide a valuable hands-on learning experience.Introduction:Originally, the main thrust for this work lied in the fundamental assumption that hands onexperiences universally lead to greater student outcomes in introductory mechanical engineeringcourses [1]. We operated under parameters set forth by Benson [2], Dollár [3, 4], and others thateven under the best of circumstances, online curriculum are usually a substitute or at least a mildpanacea for in-person, kinesthetic activities [5]. Of major importance to many of these works isthe persistence of the dreaded if students simply engaged in more “real engineering” thoughtmonster that arises as a panacea any time the community embarks upon a
bouncing ball using particle mechanics; Apply the use of the conservation of energy in the analysis of a bouncing ball; Apply the use of the conservation of linear momentum in the analysis of a bouncing ball; Apply central impact, inelastic impact, and the coefficient of restitution to a real problem; Design experiments; Carry out their experiments and collect data using new software found on the web; Interpret data and relate results to what analysis had led them to expect; Write reports; Present reports orally; and Work in group.Part 3. What students gained [24]. They: Engaged another dimension of learning by working on a hands-on project; Discovered that, even though the project required
their use by programs and departments in evaluating curriculum.Reporting on the use of these types of self-assessment surveys; however, is generally absent inthe engineering education literature. This paper seeks to introduce this potentially useful tool tothe engineering education community by reporting on the development and implementation of aknowledge survey for an engineering statics course. The survey consists of 122 specific successcriteria mapped to eight course-level learning outcomes. Students completed the survey threetimes during the term; once during the first week of class; once before the first exam; and oncebefore the second exam. The paper explores several potential uses of the survey data, examinescorrelation of the survey
2006-780: THE EFFECT TECHNOLOGY AND A STRUCTURED DESIGNPROBLEM HAS ON STUDENT ATTITUDES ABOUT THEORY IN A DYNAMICSCLASSLouis Everett, University of Texas-El Paso Louis J. Everett is a Professor of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Texas El Paso. Dr. Everett is a licensed professional engineer in the state of Texas and has research interests in the use of technology in the classroom. His technical research interests include robotics, machine design, dynamics and control systems. leverett@utep.edu http://research.utep.edu/pacelabArun Pennathur, University of Texas-El Paso Arunkumar Pennathur is Associate Professor of Industrial Engineering at the University of Texas El Paso. Dr
-intentioned instructor can easily become that personup front and in the center of the room that the students at the back can only hear but not reallylisten to, much less interact with in meaningful ways. These challenges and feelings make it allthe more difficult to cultivate a sense of classroom community, and to use this environment tofoster deep learning.A pilot study on faculty teaching large foundational engineering courses11 gave the followingdescriptions of learning in large classes, from the perspective of faculty: diminished quality ofinteraction between instructor and students and a perceived lack of cognitive engagement amongstudents. This description by faculty prompted us to ask the following questions: How dostudents describe their
one ofthe most diverse in our state. Over 70% of the engineering students who enrolled in engineeringmechanics for fall quarter 2012 spoke more than one language fluently. Many from this groupare immigrants and first generation college students. As a collective group, they have had verylittle exposure to mechanical systems. This limited exposure allows for conceptual gaps in theirunderstanding of mechanical systems. To address these conceptual gaps, we implement twoInteractive Engagement strategies. These strategies “promote conceptual understanding throughinteractive engagement of students in heads-on (always) and hands-on (usually) activities whichyield immediate feedback through discussion.” 1 The positive impact of student engagement
cihub.orgas well as an initial online attitudinal survey including items related to community andbelonging, engineering identity scales, emotional affect ratings, professional role confidencesurvey items, selected Academic Pathways of People Learning Engineering Survey (APPLES)categories, and selected measures of student engagement borrowed from the National Survey ofStudent Engagement (NSSE)11, 17–24. The intermediate qualitative stage included observationalfieldnotes of lectures as well as recitation sections throughout the semester, and one-on-one Page 23.856.9interviews with eleven focal students conducted during weeks 11 and 12 of the 16
shear and moment diagrams. Students were provided with the basic platform for thegame but created their own shear and moment diagrams along with the logic for the solution.The games of individual students were compiled in a multilevel game that proved beneficial tostudent learning. The feedback based on student input in the games allows the students to learnand apply new concepts simultaneously. The impact of the games and the student involvementin the game design process have been positive as evidenced by performance on exams andpositive feedback on surveys. Students are motivated to get involved in the game design processby the fact that their work is being evaluated by their peers and that it has some useful purposethat will continue to
than uncued visualization [1], [9],[12], [21]. Koning et al., for instance, reported that students elevated their academic performancewhen visual cueing was implemented as evidenced by higher scores and transfer tests [4], [5], [6],[7]. Decades of research have further posited that classroom environment has a considerableimpact on student learning, engagement, and success. Walberg and Boy et al., for instance,reported that educational productivity is dependent on the psychosocial aspect of the classroom[3], [15], [16], [17]. Furthermore, Marquez and Garcia developed the ECNQ model (e.g., acronymfor Engage, Communicate, Names, Questions) as a practical and dynamic framework to engageengineering students and disrupt traditional normalized
students in the interest of time). The aim of the experiments was to get the students to get used to physically manipulating objects to test how they work, and to get used to translating those observations into useable knowledge.vi. Group Work in Class. Approximately one third of lecture time over the course of the semester was turned over to students working on problems in class in small groups. This presented an opportunity for the instructor and TAs to monitor student progress and to encourage students to draw bigger and more ambitious diagrams. This activity also required more active engagement in class and, because of the smaller class size, allowed the instructor to learn names/build rapport and
threesubmissions), student submissions were collected as uploads to a folder on the course’s learningmanagement system (LMS). During the latter portion of the semester (final four submissions),Twitter (http://www.twitter.com) was utilized as a means to both collect and promote discussionsaround student submissions. On Twitter, students were asked to include a hashtag (#mech293)with each of their posts (tweets) to provide a means of quickly sorting and organizing relevantposts. The transition from collecting submissions on the LMS to Twitter was made in order tofoster easier out-of-class discussion and communication surrounding a given student submission.Similar work has suggested that the use of Twitter helps facilitate student engagement outside ofclass
Paper ID #16199A Laboratory Study of Student Usage of Worked-example Videos to SupportProblem SolvingDr. Edward J. Berger, Purdue University, West Lafayette Edward Berger is an Associate Professor of Engineering Education and Mechanical Engineering at Purdue University, joining Purdue in August 2014. He has been teaching mechanics for nearly 20 years, and has worked extensively on the integration and assessment of specific technology interventions in mechanics classes. He was one of the co-leaders in 2013-2014 of the ASEE Virtual Community of Practice (VCP) for mechanics educators across the country.Prof. Michael Wilson
class [1], many faculty are turning to online homeworkbased systems (Pearson’s Mastering, Wiley Plus and/or McGraw Hill’s Connect). These systemsprovide content, grading and assessment of student work, and feedback to the students whilesolving problems. One of the things that is missing from all of these tools is the capability toassess the student’s communication of their thought process as they progress through a problem.Most problems in these systems provide step-by-step guidance where students are asked to “fill-in-the-blanks” with their answers. They do not allow for independent thought for the students toanalyze and solve a problem in a manner that might make sense to themselves. In addition, theydo not allow for analysis of that thought
asked the students toconsider just the beam as a system, as this was the object that communicated the change in theorientation of the slider to their hand, they became confused and in most cases actually ended uparguing a different answer. From this point of view, or choice of system, the students haddifficulty in identifying a reason as to why the orientation of the slider should be noticeable.Students who realized that their answer should not depend on the choice of the system oftenchanged their initially correct answer and said that the orientation of the extension would not befelt by the person holding the beam, i.e., that they would not feel a difference holding theslider-and-beam with an inward-directed slider in comparison to an outward