Asee peer logo

Muddiest Point Formative Feedback in Core Materials Classes with YouTube, Blackboard, Class Warm-ups and Word Clouds

Download Paper |

Conference

2013 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Location

Atlanta, Georgia

Publication Date

June 23, 2013

Start Date

June 23, 2013

End Date

June 26, 2013

ISSN

2153-5965

Conference Session

Teaching Materials Science Using Innovative Methods

Tagged Division

Materials

Page Count

18

Page Numbers

23.916.1 - 23.916.18

Permanent URL

https://peer.asee.org/22301

Download Count

15

Request a correction

Paper Authors

biography

Stephen J Krause Arizona State University

visit author page

Stephen J. Krause is a professor in the School of Materials in the Fulton School of Engineering at Arizona State University. He teaches in the areas of bridging engineering and education, capstone design, and introductory materials engineering. His research interests are evaluating conceptual knowledge, misconceptions and their repair, and conceptual change. He has co-developed a Materials Concept Inventory for assessing conceptual knowledge of students in introductory materials engineering classes. He is currently conducting research on misconceptions and development of strategies and tools to promote conceptual change in materials courses.

visit author page

biography

Dale R Baker Arizona State University

visit author page

Dr. Dale Baker is a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the American Educational Research Association. Her research has focused on equity issues in science and engineering, teaching and learning in science and engineering and teacher professional development in science and engineering. A new area of research she is exploring is the issues surrounding increasing the number of individuals with disabilities in science and engineering and the role of adaptive technologies in increasing participation in science and engineering.

visit author page

biography

Adam R Carberry Arizona State University Orcid 16x16 orcid.org/0000-0003-0041-7060

visit author page

Dr. Adam R. Carberry is an Assistant Professor at Arizona State University in the College of Technology & Innovation’s Department of Engineering. He earned a B.S. in Materials Science Engineering from Alfred University, and received his M.S. and Ph.D., both from Tufts University, in Chemistry and Engineering Education respectively. Dr. Carberry was previously an employee of the Tufts’ Center for Engineering Education & Outreach and manager of the Student Teacher Outreach Mentorship Program (STOMP).

visit author page

biography

Milo Koretsky Oregon State University

visit author page

Dr. Milo Koretsky is a Professor of Chemical Engineering at Oregon State University. He currently has research activity in areas related to thin film materials processing and engineering education. He is interested in integrating technology into effective educational practices and in promoting the use of higher level cognitive skills in engineering problem solving. Koretsky is a six-time Intel Faculty Fellow and has won awards for his work in engineering education at the university and national levels.

visit author page

biography

Bill Jay Brooks Oregon State University

visit author page

Bill Brooks is a Ph.D. candidate in the School of Chemical, Biological, and Environmental Engineering at Oregon State University. As an undergraduate he studied hardware engineering, software engineering, and chemical engineering. Bill has been involved in the development of several educational software tools including the Virtual BioReactor, the Web-based Interactive Science and Engineering (WISE) Learning Tool, and the AIChE Concept Warehouse. His dissertation is focused on technology-mediated, active learning techniques and the mechanisms through which they impact student performance.

visit author page

biography

Debra Gilbuena Oregon State University

visit author page

Debra Gilbuena is a Ph.D. candidate in the School of Chemical, Biological, and Environmental Engineering at Oregon State University. She currently has research focused on student learning in virtual laboratories. Gilbuena has an M.B.A., an M.S., and four years of industrial experience including a position in sensor development, an area in which she holds a patent. Her dissertation is focused on the characterization and analysis of feedback in engineering education. She also has interests in the diffusion of effective educational interventions and practices.

visit author page

author page

Cindy Waters North Carolina A&T State University

biography

Casey Jane Ankeny Arizona State University

visit author page

Casey J. Ankeny, Ph.D. is a postdoctoral fellow in engineering education at Arizona State University and an adjunct professor at Scottsdale Community College. Currently, she is working under Steven Krause, Ph.D. to investigated cyber-based student engagement strategies with frequent, formative feedback in introductory courses. Casey received her bachelor’s degree in Biomedical Engineering from the University of Virginia in 2006 and her doctorate degree in Biomedical Engineering from Georgia Institute of Technology and Emory University in 2012 where she studied shear- and side-dependent microRNAs in human aortic valvular endothelial cells and taught six different biology and engineering courses. She aspires to employ student engagement strategies in the context of biomedical engineering education in the future.

visit author page

Download Paper |

Abstract

Muddiest Point Formative Feedback in Core Materials Classes with YouTube, Blackboard, Class Warm-ups and Word CloudsCritical class reflections on “Muddiest Points”, i.e. the content students struggle to grasp most,provide formative feedback to an instructor who can strategize to adjust his/her teaching andpedagogy to address issues specific to a given class. In a Muddiest Point Reflection an instructorsolicits from students a brief, anonymous written comment about difficult concepts or otherissues that arose during the class. It is also possible now to easily and efficiently collect andreview Muddiest Point reflection responses via the web on the cyber-enabled ConceptWarehouse web site http://cw.edudiv.org, which also has large sets of concept-based clickerquestions (or ConcepTests) for core chemical engineering classes as well as a set of clickerquestions for an introductory materials science class. The Muddiest Point method allows studentsto reflect on their own learning over the whole class and highlight specific issues that may havearisen on a particular aspect of content, concepts or procedures related the topic being taught.Self-efficacy of students can also increase because a class can be designed so that newinformation is based on students' prior knowledge, in which they hopefully have confidence, andcan potentially motivate them to better learn. The critical class reflections also provide a clearand easy way to track the attitudes, understanding, and learning approaches of the students in theclass. Addressing learning issues as quickly as possible with rapid feedback is an important partof effective teaching and consists of first assessing and evaluating students' knowledge andunderstanding of a topic. Then it is possible to give meaningful feedback and adjust teachingstrategies as informed by both student progress as well as issues. The feedback should be thetype of information that is related to attainment of learning goals that are directed towardsperforming a task or understanding a concept. Feedback directed toward learning goals which arevalued by students has the potential to increase motivation and persistence in achieving thegoals. The collective set of responses from a given class can be evaluated by an instructor andsynthesized into feedback to be delivered to students in different ways.In this collaborative research project on more effective teaching in core materials classes,instructors at different institutions are using different methods of communicating feedback tostudents from their responses to Muddiest Point reflections. The research question here is, "Whatis the effect on student learning and attitude of differing modes of feedback from students'Muddiest Point reflections?" One method is to restructure the notes from a given class and placethe set on Blackboard so the new notes respond to student issues raised in Muddiest Points. Thiscan reinforce class learning, clarify muddy points, and potentially assist in solving homeworkproblems. Another method is to create Muddiest Point YouTube screencasts, such as the ones atwww.youtube.com/user/MaterialsConcepts, which can be viewed by students to help resolvedifficult concepts and also assist in solving homework problems. A third method is with ClassWarm-ups, which consist of a slide or two for discussion at the beginning of the next class whichcan help clarify confusing or difficult-to-grasp concepts. A final supplemental approach is toincorporate Word Clouds in any of the feedback methods. This allows students to visually assessand share what their most significant issues may be, with the Muddiest Point frequency of agiven word from an issue revealed by the size of its word in the Word Cloud. Differentinstructors using the different methods of Muddiest Point feedback have all reported positivestudent attitudes and improved engagement and learning from preliminary assessments.Additional detail and results will be reported in the full paper.

Krause, S. J., & Baker, D. R., & Carberry, A. R., & Koretsky, M., & Brooks, B. J., & Gilbuena, D., & Waters, C., & Ankeny, C. J. (2013, June), Muddiest Point Formative Feedback in Core Materials Classes with YouTube, Blackboard, Class Warm-ups and Word Clouds Paper presented at 2013 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Atlanta, Georgia. https://peer.asee.org/22301

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: © 2013 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