Dynamics for D's: Avoiding Multiple Failures in a High Risk Course

Brian P. Self; James M Widmann

Download Paper | Permalink

Conference: 2024 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition
Location: Portland, Oregon
Publication Date: June 23, 2024
Start Date: June 23, 2024
End Date: June 26, 2024
Conference Session: Understanding the Student Experience in Mechanics Courses
Tagged Division: Mechanics Division (MECHS)
Page Count: 7
DOI: 10.18260/1-2--47209
Permanent URL: https://peer.asee.org/47209
Download Count: 71

Paper Authors

biography

Brian P. Self California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

visit author page

Dr. Brian Self worked in the Air Force Research Laboratories before teaching at the U.S. Air Force Academy for seven years. Brian has taught in the Mechanical Engineering Department at Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo since 2006. Dr Self’s engineering education interests include collaborating on the Dynamics Concept Inventory, developing model-eliciting activities in mechanical engineering courses, inquiry-based learning in mechanics, and design projects to help promote adapted physical activities. Other professional interests include aviation physiology and biomechanics. He is a Fellow of the American Society for Engineering Education and the Aerospace Medical Association.

visit author page

biography

James M Widmann California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

visit author page

Jim Widmann is a professor and chair of the Mechanical Engineering Department at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo. He received his Ph.D. in 1994 from Stanford University and has served as a Fulbright Scholar at Kathmandu University

visit author page

Download Paper | Permalink

Abstract

Student struggles with dynamics are well documented. At our institution, students often fail the course multiple times, delaying their graduation or even demotivating them to pursue engineering. We postulate that students taking it multiple times may not get much out of having material presented in the same basic linear fashion. To help counter this issue of multiple failures, we offered an invitation only section to students who had previously received a D, F, W or I in the preceding two quarters. The goals of this project were: 1) to provide the opportunity for students to immediately re-enroll after not passing and 2) to try and prevent students from failing ME212 multiple times by providing a section that focusses on conceptual understanding and problem solving, and 3) to provide students with a stronger background in dynamics for follow-on courses.

Although a review of the material was provided in a similar linear fashion as normal, about half of each class was spent doing “What approach” conceptual problems. We have found that most students who don’t not succeed in the course can generally do the algorithmic problem solving, but particularly struggle identifying the type of approach to use (e.g., they apply work-energy instead of impulse momentum, or try to apply Newton’s second law to a kinematics problem).

In our first cohort, 20 students signed up for the class. Of the three students who failed (again), two were taking the class for the third time and one was taking the class for the fourth time. For the other four students who had taken the class two or more times prior, one earned an A, another a C and two earned D’s. Scores on a common final exam were 65.7% for this treatment section, 64.5% for a regular section taught by the same instructor, and 58.5% for all other sections (many of which were taught by less experiences instructors). Three fourths of the students responding to a survey found the “What approach” problems to be “Very helpful” and the other fourth “Slightly helpful.”

For such a high enrollment, high risk course, we felt that this new structure shows promise. Enrollment was slightly lower than a normal class (30-35), and it can be a little challenging to teach one of these sections at the same time as a regular section. Contrary to some of our original concerns about having everyone in the class know that everyone else had failed, the students formed a nice comradery and worked hard to help each other succeed. We hope to offer additional sections in the future.

Citation
Format

Self, B. P., & Widmann, J. M. (2024, June), Dynamics for D's: Avoiding Multiple Failures in a High Risk Course Paper presented at 2024 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Portland, Oregon. 10.18260/1-2--47209

TY  - CPAPER
AB  - Student struggles with dynamics are well documented. At our institution, students often fail the course multiple times, delaying their graduation or even demotivating them to pursue engineering. We postulate that students taking it multiple times may not get much out of having material presented in the same basic linear fashion. To help counter this issue of multiple failures, we offered an invitation only section to students who had previously received a D, F, W or I in the preceding two quarters.  The goals of this project were: 1) to provide the opportunity for students to immediately re-enroll after not passing and 2) to try and prevent students from failing ME212 multiple times by providing a section that focusses on conceptual understanding and problem solving, and 3) to provide students with a stronger background in dynamics for follow-on courses.  

Although a review of the material was provided in a similar linear fashion as normal, about half of each class was spent doing “What approach” conceptual problems. We have found that most students who don’t not succeed in the course can generally do the algorithmic problem solving, but particularly struggle identifying the type of approach to use (e.g., they apply work-energy instead of impulse momentum, or try to apply Newton’s second law to a kinematics problem).       

In our first cohort, 20 students signed up for the class. Of the three students who failed (again), two were taking the class for the third time and one was taking the class for the fourth time.   For the other four students who had taken the class two or more times prior, one earned an A, another a C and two earned D’s. Scores on a common final exam were 65.7% for this treatment section, 64.5% for a regular section taught by the same instructor, and 58.5% for all other sections (many of which were taught by less experiences instructors).  Three fourths of the students responding to a survey found the “What approach” problems to be “Very helpful” and the other fourth “Slightly helpful.” 

For such a high enrollment, high risk course, we felt that this new structure shows promise. Enrollment was slightly lower than a normal class (30-35), and it can be a little challenging to teach one of these sections at the same time as a regular section. Contrary to some of our original concerns about having everyone in the class know that everyone else had failed, the students formed a nice comradery and worked hard to help each other succeed. We hope to offer additional sections in the future.  
                             

AU  - Brian P. Self
AU  - James M Widmann
CY  - Portland, Oregon
DA  - 2024/06/23
PB  - ASEE Conferences
TI  - Dynamics for D's: Avoiding Multiple Failures in a High Risk Course
UR  - https://peer.asee.org/47209
DO  - 10.18260/1-2--47209
ER  -