June 14, 2015
June 14, 2015
June 17, 2015
26.583.1 - 26.583.14
Effectiveness of Traditional, Blended and On-Line Teaching of Electrical Machinery CourseWith an increasing emphasis on student learning outcomes and assessment, educators constantlyseek ways to effectively integrate theory and hands-on practices in inventive course designmethodologies. Critics of engineering education argue that educational programs focus too muchon the transmittal of information through static lecture-discussion formats and routine use ofoutdated laboratory exercises. On the other hand, that active learning, learning that involveshands-on experience, significantly improves student comprehension and proficiency. It is clearthat understanding and retention are greatly enhanced when students engage in active learning.While theoretical knowledge remains a fundamental component of any comprehension process,the underpinnings of proficiency development seem to increase best through active learningpractices. What remains less clear is the “gold standard” for pedagogical approaches thatcombine theory and hands-on learning.In this article we describe the development and implementation of three models of ElectricalMachinery course offering: traditional, on-line, and blended. The traditional way of teaching ofElectrical machinery course for EET and Mechanical Engineering Technology (MET) majorshas been conducted for years and therefore provides us with significant statistics on students'comprehension of the subject. The goal of a blended approach is to join the best aspects of bothface-to-face and online instruction: classroom time can be used to engage students in advancedlearning experiences, while the on-line portion of the course can provide students with content atany time of day allowing for an increase in scheduling flexibility for students. We share the datacollected over several years of teaching all three models. To effectively assess the courseoutcomes the direct and indirect assessment tools have been implemented. Analysis of theindirect data reveals some contradiction in students’ responces: "they learned a great deal fromthe course" at the same time stating that they "had a hard time" earning high grades. As part ofthe direct assessment tool, we used the average and standard deviation results of the final examscores, as well as a final grade distribution as a rubric for this assessment. We also comparedthese data with the ones available from the previous years when the course was taught utilizingtraditional model. The direct assessment of these data reveals very interesting results. Eventhough the students' perception of the blended version of the EM course was not exceedinglypositive, the direct assessment demonstrates that the students' performance participating in theblended learning was either the same or even better comparable to traditional and hybrid models.This fact almost looks like a negative correlation between the students' feedback and their actualperformance in the class.In this articles we discuss the structural details of all three course models, including thetheoretical topics and experimental exercises of the course, the technology that has been used forthe on-line materials development, implementation of the assessment tools to evaluate thestudents progress, and students' perception of all three models.
Sergeyev, A., & Alaraje, N. (2015, June), Effectiveness of Traditional, Blended, and Online Teaching of Electrical Machinery Course Paper presented at 2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Seattle, Washington. 10.18260/p.23921
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: © 2015 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