June 14, 2015
June 14, 2015
June 17, 2015
NSF Grantees Poster Session
26.587.1 - 26.587.11
Efficacy of a metacognitive writing-to-learn exercise in improving student understanding and performance in an engineering Statics courseOur current work is an extension of the preliminary results of a NSF-funded study thatinvestigates the use of metacognitive writing-to-learn prompts in an engineering Statics course toimprove student understanding and performance. Our methodology was determined by acomprehensive study of literature investigating the use of writing in the science classroom(Beall, 1998; Case & Gunstone, 2003; Case & Marshall, 2004; Driskill, et al., 1998; Hanson &Williams, 2008; Hübner et al., 2006; Jamison, 2000: Nokes et al., 2011).In the second year of the study (2013-2014), we developed a writing prompt that we are findingto be more successful than our previous iterations, both in efficacy for the students and ease ofimplementation for the professor. Specifically, after students solve selected engineeringproblems, they answer short-answer questions to describe any confusion they had about theconcepts or computations required to solve the problem. The professor then demonstrates theproblem solution in class as students correct their own work. Following this, students are askedto revisit and reexamine their conceptual and computational errors via writing in the classroom.We believe that students will gain a more lasting and deeper understanding of the staticsconcepts under examination if students are given an opportunity to reflect in writing on thereason for their mistakes after instructor feedback. Finally, the instructor provides additionalfeedback indicating whether students’ understanding of the reason for their error(s) was accurate.The inclusion of a revision-based writing step is consistent with current research showing thisapproach to be effective in improving student performance (Hübner, et al., 2006; Ionas, et al.,2012; Kagestan & Engelbrecht 2006; Porter & Masingla 2000). The revision step allows studentsto clarify their new understanding of the problem under consideration and also to reassess thereasons for their initial confusion. In this way, it closes the loop for them metacognitively. Ourpreliminary data from this approach, presented at the ASEE 2014 meeting, suggestedimprovement in student performance as seen in their final exam scores, but the sample wassmall, and the effect did not reach signficance. We are therefore implementing the samemethodology during the Fall 2014 semester with a cohort of approximately 60 students in twosections of Statics, taught by the same professor as the previous semester, for a more robust testof the efficacy of the intervention. To rule out the possibility of cohort differences, we are alsocollecting GPA/SAT and prerequisite grades in math and physics for past and current Staticsstudents.For the ASEE 2015 conference, we plan to present the most recent findings of this study. BySpring 2015, we will have a clearer picture of the efficacy of our intervention. If appropriate, wewill then be ready to discuss ways that this writing intervention might be utilized effectively inother engineering education contexts. If we find that the intervention is not effective, we willpresent changes that we plan to implement to improve learning in Statics. ReferencesBeall, H. (1998). Expanding the scope of writing in chemical education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 7(3), 259-270.Case, J. & Gunstone, R. F. (2003). Approaches to learning in a second year chemical engineering course. International Journal of Science Education, 25(7), 801-819.Case, J. & Marshall, D. (2004). Between deep and surface: procedural approaches to learning in engineering education contexts. Studies in Higher Education, 29(5), 605-615.Driskill, L, Lewis, K., Stearns, J., & Volz, T. (1998). Students’ reasoning and rhetorical knowledge in first-year chemistry. Language and Learning Across the Disciplines, 2(3), 3-24.Hanson, J. H. & Williams, J. M. (2008). Using writing assessments to improve students’ self assessment and communication in an Engineering statics course. Journal of Engineering Education. 97(4), 515-529.Hübner, S., Nückles, M., & Renki, A. (2006). Prompting cognitive and metacognitive processing in writing-to-learn enhances learning outcomes. In R. Sun (Ed.), Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 357-362). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Ionas, I., Cernusca, D., & Collier, H. L. (2012). Prior knowledge influence on self-explanation effectiveness when solving problems: An exploratory study in science learning. International Journal Of Teaching And Learning In Higher Education, 24(3), 349-358.Jamison, R. (2000). Learning the language of mathematics. Learning and Language Across the Disciplines, 4(1), 45-54.Kagesten, O., & Engelbrecht, J. (2006). Supplementary explanations in undergraduate mathematics assessment: A forced formative writing activity. European Journal of Engineering Education, 31(6), 705-715.Nokes, T.J., Hausmann, R. G. M., VanLehn, K., Gershman, S. (2011). Testing the instructional fit hypothesis: The case for self-explanation prompts. Instructional Science 39: 645-666.Porter, M. & Masingla, J. O. (2000). Examining the effects of writing on conceptual and procedural knowledge in calculus. Educational Studies in Mathematics. 42, 165-177.
Goldberg, S. R., & Rich, J. A., & Masnick, A. M. (2015, June), Efficacy of a Metacognitive Writing-to-Learn Exercise in Improving Student Understanding and Performance in an Engineering Statics Course Paper presented at 2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Seattle, Washington. 10.18260/p.23925
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