Asee peer logo

Evaluation Of Student Preferences And Learning Outcomes Of Computer Based Teaching For A Manufacturing Processes Laboratory

Download Paper |

Conference

1998 Annual Conference

Location

Seattle, Washington

Publication Date

June 28, 1998

Start Date

June 28, 1998

End Date

July 1, 1998

ISSN

2153-5965

Page Count

14

Page Numbers

3.268.1 - 3.268.14

Permanent URL

https://peer.asee.org/7109

Download Count

42

Request a correction

Paper Authors

author page

David E. Hailey

author page

Christine E. Hailey

Download Paper |

Abstract
NOTE: The first page of text has been automatically extracted and included below in lieu of an abstract

Section 2520

Evaluation of Student Preferences and Learning Outcomes of Computer Based Teaching for a Manufacturing Processes Laboratory

Christine E. Hailey, David E. Hailey, Jr. Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering / Department of English Utah State University

Abstract

Studies conducted by a number of investigators indicate that there are no negative outcomes when computer-based teaching (CBT) is used in place of or in conjunction with a traditional lecture. We performed three studies concerning student preferences and learning as a function of the instructional design and delivery of CBT modules. The studies were conducted in conjunction with the development of twenty-one CBT modules for an Introduction to Manufacturing Processes laboratory that emphasized metal removal. Study results indicate there is no statistically relevant difference in learning between students using material presented with traditional multimedia (35mm slides and cassette tapes) and the identical material presented with digital multimedia.

Engineering students’ preferences for interface design and audio and visual information presentation are also presented. The interface design, overall, benefited greatly by employing the talents of technical writing majors.

The most important result is that learning outcomes of a reader-driven CBT module were found to be statistically lower than those associated with author-driven CBT module, especially for average and below-average students. These results suggest that if students must absolutely understand material, e.g., laboratory safety, the CBT should be author-driven. Based on these results, we speculate that average and below average engineering students are more linear learners. A hybrid scheme, where information presentation transitions from an author-driven to a reader-driven environment may help weaker students develop better non-linear, open-ended problem solving skills.

Introduction

Studies conducted by a number of investigators indicate that there are no negative outcomes when computer based teaching (CBT) is used in place of or in conjunction with a traditional lecture. Bengu and Swart1 and Sears and Watkins2 have described learning modules developed for use on the World-Wide Web (WWW). Cobourn and Lindauer,3 Mosterman et al.,4 Harger5 and Dobson, et al.6 have described additional learning modules for a variety of engineering programs developed with various authoring software. The authors of References 3 through 6 distributed questionnaires to their students in order to assess student receptivity to the modules. All noted favorable responses from students.

1

Hailey, D. E., & Hailey, C. E. (1998, June), Evaluation Of Student Preferences And Learning Outcomes Of Computer Based Teaching For A Manufacturing Processes Laboratory Paper presented at 1998 Annual Conference, Seattle, Washington. https://peer.asee.org/7109

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: © 1998 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