Board 40: Effect of Online Recorded Video “Review Session” on Student Test Preparation and Performance for Fluid Mechanics Midterm at a University in the Netherlands

Michael D. M. Barankin; Kevin Stratman

Download Paper | Permalink

Conference: 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Publication Date: June 23, 2018
Start Date: June 23, 2018
End Date: July 27, 2018
Conference Session: Chemical Engineering Division Poster Session
Tagged Division: Chemical Engineering
Page Count: 12
DOI: 10.18260/1-2--30027
Permanent URL: https://peer.asee.org/30027
Download Count: 535

Request a correction

Paper Authors

biography

Michael D. M. Barankin Colorado School of Mines

visit author page

Michael D. M. Barankin is a Teaching Assistant Professor of Chemical Engineering at the Colorado School of Mines. Dr. Barankin received his B.S. and Ph.D. from the University of CA, Los Angeles in 2002 and 2009, respectively; and he received his M.S., graduating with honors, from the Technical University in Delft, the Netherlands (TU Delft) in 2004. After a post-doctoral appointment at TU Delft through 2011, Dr. Barankin was a lecturer at the Hanze University of Applied Sciences in Groningen, where he taught both in Dutch and in English. During this time his primary teaching and course development responsibilities were wide-ranging, but included running the Unit Operations laboratory, introducing Aspen Plus software to the curriculum, and developing a course for a new M.S. program on Renewable Energy (EUREC). In conjunction with his teaching appointment, he supervised dozens of internships (a part of the curriculum at the Hanze), and a number of undergraduate research projects with the Energy Knowledge Center (EKC) as well as a master’s thesis. In 2016, Dr. Barankin returned to the US to teach at the Colorado School of Mines. His primary teaching and course development responsibilities here include Transport Phenomena and Senior Design (Aspen), among other upper-level undergraduate courses. His research interests include digital methods in engineering education, and renewable & sustainable energy.

visit author page

biography

Kevin Stratman Colorado School of Mines

visit author page

Chemical Engineering undergraduate student

visit author page

Download Paper | Permalink

Abstract

There is an increasing push to add more digital resources (such as video lectures) to undergraduate engineering courses, enabling strategies such as the flipped classroom or formats such as online education. Yet in this rapid push, it is important that educators remain circumspect about new methods until they have been proven effective. While online videos have been proven very useful in various lecture scenarios, the purpose of this study was to determine whether a video “review session” may be effective preparation for midterm exams. At a University of Applied Sciences in the Netherlands (a “hogeschool”), Fluid Mechanics is a part of the first-year curriculum for both Chemistry and Chemical Engineering students. In 2015, an online video was generated based on prior-used material for midterm review sessions, and shared with two of the four sections (one of the two sections taught by each of the two lecturers). The hour-long exam comprised four multiple-choice questions on theoretical concepts and two multi-part practical problems in which students solved for quantities like volumetric flow rate and pressure drop. Also printed on the exam paper after the problems was a brief, six-question survey asking about the students’ manner of preparation (attendance, book usage, and use of LMS materials), whether they watched the video, and what sort of math and physics they’d had in their high school courses and exit exams. Only one student, of the eighty-one tested, did not answer the survey questions. Interestingly, the students who obtained the video from the instructor scored lower on the Dutch 10-point grading scale—a 5.8 average for the former group compared to 6.2 for the latter; while the two students who answered that they’d obtained the video from a fellow student rather than from the instructor averaged a 5.1. The survey results showed that a majority of students who reported watching the video also reported not using the online materials (consisting of practice exams with solutions): 18 did not use the LMS materials, out of a total of 32 who watched the video. For the control group (those who did not watch the video), this proportion was fifty/fifty (24 out of 48). While these results may not be statistically significant, it suggests that many students who watched the video used it as a replacement for other study methods rather than as a supplement to them. While the use of this video may have worked to these students’ detriment, it should be noted that much stronger indicators of student success on the exam included class attendance, whether they purchased or obtained the book, and whether or not advanced math geared toward the physical sciences (“Wiskunde B”) was a part of their high school exit exams. This research will be repeated for a midterm exam at a University in the United States where Fluid Mechanics is a part of the second-year curriculum, and the results will be compared to those presented here.

Citation
Format

Barankin, M. D. M., & Stratman, K. (2018, June), Board 40: Effect of Online Recorded Video “Review Session” on Student Test Preparation and Performance for Fluid Mechanics Midterm at a University in the Netherlands Paper presented at 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition , Salt Lake City, Utah. 10.18260/1-2--30027

TY  - CPAPER
AB  - There is an increasing push to add more digital resources (such as video lectures) to undergraduate engineering courses, enabling strategies such as the flipped classroom or formats such as online education. Yet in this rapid push, it is important that educators remain circumspect about new methods until they have been proven effective. While online videos have been proven very useful in various lecture scenarios, the purpose of this study was to determine whether a video “review session” may be effective preparation for midterm exams.
At a University of Applied Sciences in the Netherlands (a “hogeschool”), Fluid Mechanics is a part of the first-year curriculum for both Chemistry and Chemical Engineering students. In 2015, an online video was generated based on prior-used material for midterm review sessions, and shared with two of the four sections (one of the two sections taught by each of the two lecturers). The hour-long exam comprised four multiple-choice questions on theoretical concepts and two multi-part practical problems in which students solved for quantities like volumetric flow rate and pressure drop. Also printed on the exam paper after the problems was a brief, six-question survey asking about the students’ manner of preparation (attendance, book usage, and use of LMS materials), whether they watched the video, and what sort of math and physics they’d had in their high school courses and exit exams. Only one student, of the eighty-one tested, did not answer the survey questions.
Interestingly, the students who obtained the video from the instructor scored lower on the Dutch 10-point grading scale—a 5.8 average for the former group compared to 6.2 for the latter; while the two students who answered that they’d obtained the video from a fellow student rather than from the instructor averaged a 5.1. The survey results showed that a majority of students who reported watching the video also reported not using the online materials (consisting of practice exams with solutions): 18 did not use the LMS materials, out of a total of 32 who watched the video. For the control group (those who did not watch the video), this proportion was fifty/fifty (24 out of 48). While these results may not be statistically significant, it suggests that many students who watched the video used it as a replacement for other study methods rather than as a supplement to them. While the use of this video may have worked to these students’ detriment, it should be noted that much stronger indicators of student success on the exam included class attendance, whether they purchased or obtained the book, and whether or not advanced math geared toward the physical sciences (“Wiskunde B”) was a part of their high school exit exams.
This research will be repeated for a midterm exam at a University in the United States where Fluid Mechanics is a part of the second-year curriculum, and the results will be compared to those presented here.
AU  - Michael D. M. Barankin
AU  - Kevin Stratman
CY  - Salt Lake City, Utah
DA  - 2018/06/23
PB  - ASEE Conferences
TI  - Board 40: Effect of Online Recorded Video “Review Session” on Student Test Preparation and Performance for Fluid Mechanics Midterm at a University in the Netherlands
UR  - https://peer.asee.org/30027
DO  - 10.18260/1-2--30027
ER  -