Improving Active Learning and Instant Feedback in an Introductory Engineering

Course

Caleb H. FarnySean B. Andersson

Dept of Mechanical Engineering

BU Instructional Innovation ConferenceMarch 2013

Support from Office of the Provost and the Center for Excellence and Innovation in Teaching

Engineering Mechanics I (EK301)

• Required COE introductory engineering course– Fall 2012: 240 students; 4 sections; 4 faculty– Spring 2013: 140 students, 3 sections; 3 faculty

• Two 2-hour lectures per week• Analyze forces on static structures– Graphical, mathematical analysis

• Course restructuring: Spring 2012

Motivation to change

• Multiple sections, multiple faculty: disparity• Strong interest in more examples• Discussion of graphical analysis• Anecdotal evidence for success of in-class

problem solving

Influences• Peer learning

– Group environment• Enabling technology

– Tablet input– Facilitation of student work

• RULE funding…

Vision• Unified sections• Dedicated lecture time to active learning, group work• Incorporation of tablets for transmission of student work• “Real-time” faculty feedback, criticism

“Lecture”

• 4-person groups + tablet1. Presentation of new concepts (15 min)2. Example problem on new concept (15 min)– Feedback from instructional team– Wireless submission of group work instructor

3. Student-led presentation of problem solution– Instructor facilitated– Compare, contrast multiple methods, common

problems• Work posted online after lecture

x2

Logistics• Instructional team: – Faculty instructor– Graduate Teaching Fellow (GTF)– Undergraduate Learning Assistant(s) (LA)

• Active talking: 2 hours vs 30 min– Complexities reserved for problem discussion

• Technology: iPad, stylus, drawing app, Dropbox– Enabler, not focus

Evaluation• Spring 2012:

– Section A: Traditional format• 65 students, single faculty member

– 8 LEAP students• In-class examples

– Section B: “RULE” format• 56 students, 2 faculty members, GTF

– 1 LEAP student– Same in-class examples, assignments

• Comparison: – Quiz– Exam– Instructor and course outcomes

• Anecdotal observations:– Section A: Quiet working atmosphere– Section B: Audible buzz, inter-group arguments

Section comparison

• RULE section performed higher on all tests

• Exclusion of LEAP students widens the margin

_x0004_Quiz _x0006_Exam 1 _x0006_Exam 2 _x0005_Final30

40

50

60

70

80

90A, all

B, all

A, no LEAP

B, no LEAP

Scor

e (%

)

_x0004_Quiz _x0006_Exam 1 _x0006_Exam 2 _x0005_Final30

40

50

60

70

80

90A, all

B, all

A, no LEAP

B, no LEAP

Scor

e (%

)

Overall comparison

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

A, allB, allA, no LEAPB, no LEAP

GPA

A B A B

Course GPA

A B A B

Overall GPA

GPA DependenceDoes demonstrated student record impact course performance?• Screen student pool for GPA below 2.7• Adjusted GPA: GPA without EK301 grade• Difference between course and adjusted GPA

GPA DependenceDoes demonstrated student record impact course performance?• Screen student pool for GPA below 3.0• Adjusted GPA: GPA without EK301 grade• Difference between course and adjusted GPA

GPA DependenceDoes demonstrated student record impact course performance?• Screen student pool for GPA above 3.0• Adjusted GPA: GPA without EK301 grade• Difference between course and adjusted GPA

Course Evaluation

Explanation of basic concepts & principles

Section B

Section A

Course level of difficulty Easy Difficult

Poor Excellent

Results

• Higher average scores on all in-class tests• Relative improvement based on demonstrated

aptitude level– 3.0 (B average) and below– 2.7 (B- average) and below

• Negligible measurable impact on upper-tier performance students

• Self-reported qualitative impact higher

Discussion

• Exposure of common mistakes• Multiple routes to correct solution• Instant feedback on acceptable method• Immediate application of new material,

reinforcement of method• Peer learning• Breaking down student-faculty barrier– GTF, LA roles– Insight into student miscomprehension

Difficulties• Drawing on iPad• Group dynamics in auditorium-style hall• Lecture delivery, timing

External Implementation• Technology aspect a minimal issue• Focus on group work• Higher-level course requires more discourse• Focus on problem definition, solution strategy