Frequency of Exams and Student Performance in Solid Mechanics Courses

Stephen N. Kuchnicki; Scott F. Kiefer

Download Paper | Permalink

Conference: 2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Publication Date: June 24, 2017
Start Date: June 24, 2017
End Date: June 28, 2017
Conference Session: Assessment & Grading in Mechanics
Tagged Division: Mechanics
Page Count: 12
DOI: 10.18260/1-2--28386
Permanent URL: https://peer.asee.org/28386
Download Count: 620

Request a correction

Paper Authors

biography

Stephen N. Kuchnicki York College of Pennsylvania

visit author page

Dr. Stephen Kuchnicki has been on the Mechanical Engineering faculty at York College of Pennsylvania since January 2008. Previously, he was a postdoctoral research associate at Rutgers University, specializing in computational modeling of dynamic deformations in solids. His areas of technical expertise include solid mechanics, crystal plasticity, vibration, and fluid-structure interaction. He received his Ph.D. from Rutgers University in 2001.

visit author page

biography

Scott F. Kiefer York College of Pennsylvania

visit author page

Scott Kiefer has spent the past sixteen years teaching mechanical engineering at four institutions. As an exemplary teaching specialist in mechanical engineering at Michigan State University, Scott received the Withrow Award for Teaching Excellence, given to one faculty member in the College in Engineering for outstanding instructional performance. Scott specializes in machine design, vibrations and controls, and mechatronics. He started his career at the University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez in the traditional role of teaching and administering a modest research program. At Trine University, a small private school in Angola, Indiana, Scott taught ten different courses from introductory freshman courses to senior design, while serving as advisor to many undergraduate research projects. For the last six years, Scott has been at York College of Pennsylvania where his concentration is on undergraduate education in mechanical engineering.

visit author page

Download Paper | Permalink

Abstract

This study compares several methods of examinations given in both an introductory solid mechanics course and a follow-up machine component design course. To help determine the best frequency of evaluating student performance, several examination schedules are compared for each course. For the introductory solid mechanics course, three exam schedules were used: Three equally-distributed 75 minute exams with a 120 minute final exam; two 75-minute midterms, daily five-minute clicker quizzes and a 120 minute final exam; and six or seven shorter 40 minute exams in addition to the final exam. The machine component design course used two different schedules: Two equally-distributed 120 minute exams; and six or seven equally-distributed 50-minute exams. Neither exam schedule for the machine component design course used a final exam. Typically, the longer exams (75 minutes and longer) each had three or four problems, while the shorter 40 or 50 minute exams had two problems each.

The relative effectiveness of each method is evaluated using outcomes assessment data from the exam questions given and via student self-assessment. From the instructor point of view, it is found that offering what amounts to twelve to fifteen midterm problems over the course of the semester instead of nine to twelve allowed for finer evaluation of student outcomes. That is, a problem could be given early in the semester that tests stress transformations explicitly via a predetermined set of axial and shear stresses. Later in the term, a more complex problem requiring students to evaluate these stresses and then find the appropriate principal stresses could be offered, allowing the instructor to assess each of these steps in a more straightforward manner.

Performance on midterm and final examinations using each schedule is compared. Both methods are tested for students’ ability to demonstrate knowledge of new concepts as they are taught via midterm performance, and ability to retain these concepts on a cumulative final exam. It is found that student performance on these midterms is improved when more midterms are offered rather than fewer. Further, the data shows comparable final exam performance regardless of the number of midterm exams offered. Lastly, students’ self-assessment of learning is improved when there are more midterms in the course; students feel that they have learned concepts more thoroughly when there are more exams. The data shows a similar understanding at the end of the course no matter which schedule is used.

Citation
Format

Kuchnicki, S. N., & Kiefer, S. F. (2017, June), Frequency of Exams and Student Performance in Solid Mechanics Courses Paper presented at 2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Columbus, Ohio. 10.18260/1-2--28386

TY - CPAPER
AB - This study compares several methods of examinations given in both an introductory solid mechanics course and a follow-up machine component design course. To help determine the best frequency of evaluating student performance, several examination schedules are compared for each course. For the introductory solid mechanics course, three exam schedules were used: Three equally-distributed 75 minute exams with a 120 minute final exam; two 75-minute midterms, daily five-minute clicker quizzes and a 120 minute final exam; and six or seven shorter 40 minute exams in addition to the final exam. The machine component design course used two different schedules: Two equally-distributed 120 minute exams; and six or seven equally-distributed 50-minute exams. Neither exam schedule for the machine component design course used a final exam. Typically, the longer exams (75 minutes and longer) each had three or four problems, while the shorter 40 or 50 minute exams had two problems each.

The relative effectiveness of each method is evaluated using outcomes assessment data from the exam questions given and via student self-assessment. From the instructor point of view, it is found that offering what amounts to twelve to fifteen midterm problems over the course of the semester instead of nine to twelve allowed for finer evaluation of student outcomes. That is, a problem could be given early in the semester that tests stress transformations explicitly via a predetermined set of axial and shear stresses. Later in the term, a more complex problem requiring students to evaluate these stresses and then find the appropriate principal stresses could be offered, allowing the instructor to assess each of these steps in a more straightforward manner.

Performance on midterm and final examinations using each schedule is compared. Both methods are tested for students’ ability to demonstrate knowledge of new concepts as they are taught via midterm performance, and ability to retain these concepts on a cumulative final exam. It is found that student performance on these midterms is improved when more midterms are offered rather than fewer. Further, the data shows comparable final exam performance regardless of the number of midterm exams offered. Lastly, students’ self-assessment of learning is improved when there are more midterms in the course; students feel that they have learned concepts more thoroughly when there are more exams. The data shows a similar understanding at the end of the course no matter which schedule is used.

AU - Stephen N. Kuchnicki
AU - Scott F. Kiefer
CY - Columbus, Ohio
DA - 2017/06/24
PB - ASEE Conferences
TI - Frequency of Exams and Student Performance in Solid Mechanics Courses
UR - https://peer.asee.org/28386
DO - 10.18260/1-2--28386
ER -