Asee peer logo

Assessing Instructional Modules that Accentuate Student Performance

Download Paper |


2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition


San Antonio, Texas

Publication Date

June 10, 2012

Start Date

June 10, 2012

End Date

June 13, 2012



Conference Session

Entrepreneurship and Innovation: Teaching Methods and Assessment

Tagged Division

Entrepreneurship & Engineering Innovation

Page Count


Page Numbers

25.214.1 - 25.214.11

Permanent URL

Download Count


Request a correction

Paper Authors


Mysore Narayanan Miami University

visit author page

Mysore Narayanan obtained his Ph.D. from the University of Liverpool, England in the area of electrical and electronic engineering. He joined Miami University in 1980 and teaches a wide variety of electrical, electronic, and mechanical engineering courses. He has been invited to contribute articles to several encyclopedias and has published and presented dozens of papers at local, regional, national, and international conferences. He has also designed, developed, organized, and chaired several conferences for Miami University and conference sessions for a variety of organizations. He is a Senior Member of IEEE and is a member of ASME, SIAM, ASEE, and AGU. He is actively involved in CELT activities and regularly participates and presents at the Lilly Conference. He has been the recipient of several Faculty Learning Community awards. He is also very active in assessment activities and has presented more than thirty five papers at various assessment institutes. His posters in the areas of assessment, Bloom’s Taxonomy, and Socratic Inquisition have received widespread acclaim from several scholars in the area of cognitive science and educational methodologies. He has received the Assessment of Critical Thinking Award twice and is currently working towards incorporating writing assignments that enhance students’ critical thinking capabilities.

visit author page

Download Paper |


Assessing Instructional Modules that Accentuate Student Performance Mysore NarayananThe main objective of a well designed instructional module is to ensure that the subjectmatter content is effectively integrated with the presentation format. In other words, thetask in front of the instructor would be to blend the content and presentation in theory aswell as practice. Here, the instructor assumes the role of a facilitator and effectivelyutilizes modern technology to experiment on innovative ideas that can lead to newclassroom instructional strategies (Tozman, 2004).The literature supports our intuitive belief that education in a new learning paradigm willprepare students for the work ahead of them (Cox, Grasha and Richlin, 1997). Thisindeed helps in raising expectations from the students. Whether it be performance artslike theatre and music, or be it a laboratory setting like physics or biology, studentperformance can be effectively accentuated by adopting creative instructional lessonplans. Furthermore, many of our educational institutions have tried to move away fromemphasizing the establishment of a strong knowledge-base (Young and Young, 1999).In this paper the author discusses two models that he has successfully utilized foraccentuating student performance. The first is identified as Concept Mapping Model andthe second in identified as Structured Content Model.The Concept Mapping Model utilizes the principles of a learning paradigm. (Tagg, 2003).The principle is to select an appropriate learning paradigm approach and preferablycategorize and assign the needed information into the various components of that chosenparadigm. A model for knowledge acquisition and content delivery can be suggestedhowever, this is normally accomplished utilizing well established and standardizedbuilding blocks of a learning paradigm (Barr and Tagg, 1995).The Structured Content Model may be chosen as an alternative when the instructor findsthat the Concept Mapping Model may not be suitable. Here subject matter content canbe created independent of presentation format or delivery methodology. Regardless, thisis not completely open ended and is mainly dictated by the educational objectives andcourse outcomes.References:Barr, R.B. and Tagg, J. (1995, November/December). From Teaching to Learning: ANew Paradigm for Undergraduate Education. Change, 13-24.Cox, M.D., Grasha, A., and Richlin, L. (1997, March). Town meeting. BetweenTeaching Model and Learning Model : Adapting and Adopting bit by bit. Lilly AtlanticRegional Conference.Tagg, John (2003). The Learning Paradigm College. Bolton, MA: Anker.Tozman, Reuben. ( 2004, November)., C.O., Sr. and Young, L.H. (1999). Assessing Learning in Interactive Courses.Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 10(1), 63-76.

ASEE holds the copyright on this document. It may be read by the public free of charge. Authors may archive their work on personal websites or in institutional repositories with the following citation: © 2012 American Society for Engineering Education. Other scholars may excerpt or quote from these materials with the same citation. When excerpting or quoting from Conference Proceedings, authors should, in addition to noting the ASEE copyright, list all the original authors and their institutions and name the host city of the conference. - Last updated April 1, 2015