10NCEE
Tenth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering
Frontiers of Earthquake Engineering
July 21-25, 2014
Anchorage, Alaska
ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION OF
VISUAL LEARNING MODULES
DEVELOPED FOR UNDERGRADUATE
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING AND
CONSTRUCTION EDUCATION
L. Van Den Einde1, S. Chakmakjian2, and T. C. Hutchinson3
ABSTRACT
A landmark full-scale test of a five-story reinforced concrete building was conducted on the
NEES@UCSD shake table. The building was completely furnished with nonstructural
components and systems. The knowledge gained from extensive data and video collected during
construction, fabrication and installation phases of this project provided a unique opportunity to
develop visual resources to enhance education. To this end, educational videos were produced to
promote learning in courses such as reinforced concrete, foundation design, and/or construction
management. Three videos describing the overview of construction, foundation specific
construction, and moment-frame construction were created. The videos highlight the process of
forming concrete, placing rebar, and pouring columns, walls, slabs and beams. They also
emphasize material tests and important characteristics of reinforcing steel and poured-in-place
concrete. The videos were shown in several undergraduate structural engineering courses at
UCSD and were also presented in a high school summer engineering camp. Surveys from these
courses indicated that the facts and knowledge gained by the students were aligned with the
educational objectives of the videos. Feedback also focused on the quality of the video and how
to improve the delivery. Overall, the assessments were favorable and highlight the effectiveness
of bringing large-scale experimentation through the use of video modules into the classroom to
increase the understanding of practical construction and engineering techniques.
1
LPSOE, Dept. of Structural Engineering, UCSD, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093-0085
Undergraduate Researcher, Dept. of Structural Engineering, UCSD, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093-0085
3
Professor, Dept. of Structural Engineering, UCSD, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093-0085
2
Van Den Einde L, Hutchinson T, and Chakmakjian S. Assessment and Evaluation of Visual Learning Modules
Developed for Undergraduate Structural Engineering and Construction Education. Proceedings of the 10th National
Conference in Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Anchorage, AK, 2014.
10NCEE
Tenth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering
Frontiers of Earthquake Engineering
July 21-25, 2014
Anchorage, Alaska
Assessment and Evaluation of Visual Learning Modules Developed for
Undergraduate Structural Engineering and Construction Education
L. Van Den Einde1, S. Chakmakjian2, and T. C. Hutchinson3
ABSTRACT
A landmark full-scale test of a five-story reinforced concrete building was conducted on the
NEES@UCSD shake table. The building was completely furnished with nonstructural
components and systems. The knowledge gained from extensive data and video collected during
construction, fabrication and installation phases of this project provided a unique opportunity to
develop visual resources to enhance education. To this end, educational videos were produced to
promote learning in courses such as reinforced concrete, foundation design, and/or construction
management. Three videos describing the overview of construction, foundation specific
construction, and moment-frame construction were created. The videos highlight the process of
forming concrete, placing rebar, and pouring columns, walls, slabs and beams. They also
emphasize material tests and important characteristics of reinforcing steel and poured-in-place
concrete. The videos were shown in several undergraduate structural engineering courses at UCSD
and were also presented in a high school summer engineering camp. Surveys from these courses
indicated that the facts and knowledge gained by the students were aligned with the educational
objectives of the videos. Feedback also focused on the quality of the video and how to improve the
delivery. Overall, the assessments were favorable and highlight the effectiveness of bringing largescale experimentation through the use of video modules into the classroom to increase the
understanding of practical construction and engineering techniques.
Introduction
A landmark, full-scale test of a five-story reinforced concrete building was conducted on the
NEES@UCSD Large High Performance Outdoor Shake Table (LHPOST) (Fig. 1). Industry,
academia and government collaborated to advance the understanding of the structural and
nonstructural component and systems (NCSs) performance during earthquakes. The building was
completely furnished with nonstructural components and systems, including a functioning
passenger elevator, partition walls, cladding and glazing systems, piping, ceiling, sprinklers,
building contents, and fire protection systems.
Educational modules using extensive data and video from this landmark full-scale test
1
LPSOE, Dept. of Structural Engineering, UCSD, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093-0085
Undergraduate Researcher, Dept. of Structural Engineering, UCSD, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093-0085
3
Professor, Dept. of Structural Engineering, UCSD, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093-0085
2
Van Den Einde L, Hutchinson T, and Chakmakjian S. Assessment and Evaluation of Visual Learning Modules
Developed for Undergraduate Structural Engineering and Construction Education. Proceedings of the 10th National
Conference in Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Anchorage, AK, 2014.
10NCEE
Tenth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering
Frontiers of Earthquake Engineering
July 21-25, 2014
Anchorage, Alaska
were developed. The emphasis of the learning modules was to visually describe the process of
construction, fabrication and installation of structural and nonstructural components and systems.
They are intended to supplement curriculum and enhance student learning in courses such as
reinforced concrete, foundation design and/or construction management. Examples of the
structural modules include videos documenting the process of forming for concrete construction,
placing rebar, and pouring columns, walls, slabs and beams. Nonstructural examples include
installation of in ceiling systems, passenger elevators, stairs, architectural façades, and fire
protection systems. All of these processes (fabrication, construction, installation,
instrumentation, and testing) were extremely well documented in the project, providing a unique
opportunity to utilize the vast data gained from the construction, fabrication and installation
phases of the project to enhance education.
Three structural videos describing the overview of
construction, foundation specific construction, and moment frame
construction were developed and are described in detail in this
paper. Three additional nonstructural videos highlighting the
installation of the egress system (stairs/elevator), the façade
(balloon framing/precast concrete cladding), and the medical
floors are also in preparation to complement the structural series.
The modules, intended for undergraduates, are broadly applicable
to graduate and high school students. The main objectives for
developing these educational tools are to provide an effective
learning experience for students to gain deeper knowledge in the
practical aspects of building design and construction. The videos
were shown in several undergraduate structural engineering
courses at UCSD (e.g. Prestressed Concrete, Foundation
Engineering, and Conceptual Structural Design). The videos were
also presented in a high school summer engineering camp. Fig. 1. 5-story building test [1]
Surveys were conducted to determine what students were learning from the videos, what
information and ideas students could recognize from the videos, and how "accessible" the videos
were (e.g. pacing, duration, clarity of ideas, clarity of articulation).
This paper provides a brief introduction into engineering education pedagogy and the
need for developing multimedia tools to engage students in deep learning. The objectives of the
particular videos developed in the present work, the implementation of the videos in several
engineering courses, and the results of the assessments are summarized. The results demonstrate
the effectiveness of bringing large-scale experimentation through the use of video modules into
the classroom to increase the understanding of practical construction and engineering techniques.
The Need for Developing Engaging Educational Materials
The development of effective learning experiences that promote deep understanding requires the
organization of course material around key concepts and general principles, the development of
technical and professional skills, and the application of knowledge and skills to problems that are
representative of those faced by practicing engineers [2]. Studies have associated deep learning
10NCEE
Tenth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering
Frontiers of Earthquake Engineering
July 21-25, 2014
Anchorage, Alaska
with learning experiences that emphasize “conceptual connections between the content of the
learning domain” [3]. The key to developing significant learning experiences for engineering
students involves integrating diverse knowledge, applying knowledge and skills to real-world
problems [4], and essentially making connections to students’ intended professions [5].
The concept of student engagement, known for sometime as important, has only recently
become recognized in engineering as vital to attract and retain students and underrepresented
minorities [6, 7]. A vast amount of literature has shown that engineering education should
provide enriching educational experiences that engage and ultimately enhance student learning
(diversity, technology, collaboration, internships, community service, capstones) [8]. One
approach is through the development of engineering education-related multimedia curricular
materials. According to Regan and Sheppard [9], multimedia, which is defined as a package that
combines video, text, photos, simulations, animation and/or graphics in a hypertext environment,
has been successfully applied to engineering domains to enrich formalized learning experiences.
The videos described in this paper were developed to provide effective learning
experiences that promote deeper understanding of structural engineering and construction
concepts. They can be used as case studies to demonstrate the design, development and/or failure
of engineered structures; supplements or a medium for dissemination of lectures, course
materials and/or homework. The videos provide a practical connection to the real world of
building construction, an element that is extremely difficult to teach.
Development of Videos
The educational modules that were developed utilized handycam videos taken by the research
team during all phases of construction, as well as a time lapse video created from fixed webcams
that continually monitored the construction site (day and night). These two sources generated
more than 1.2 TB of video and still image data available for production.
Video Objectives
To create the scripts, the first step involved developing simple and measurable educational
objectives for each video. Table 1 provides an overview of the three videos produced and their
educational objectives. These were presented at the onset of each video to set the tone for
subsequent material. Because the content in video 3 was lengthy, it was split into two parts. Once
the script was finalized, the video was produced using Adobe Premiere Pro, which facilitated the
integration of the introductory educational objectives (prepared on PowerPoint) and time-lapse
movies showing the structural skeleton of building construction augmented and overlaid with
other photos, video clips, and animations. Once all material was combined, the audio of a
narrator reading the script was added and the video was published.
Narrator Selection
The process for selecting a narrator proved to be more challenging than anticipated. Traits
evaluated included a clear voice that could be understood easily and the ability to emphasize and
10NCEE
Tenth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering
Frontiers of Earthquake Engineering
July 21-25, 2014
Anchorage, Alaska
correctly articulate engineering terms. The first narrator was chosen due to her Irish accent,
which was first thought appealing and would hold the attention of American viewers. She was a
student majoring in Structural Engineering, and therefore had a better understanding of the
concepts being narrated. However, initial survey results showed considerable negative feedback
regarding the narrator because she spoke too fast and pronounced words differently than
Americans. Ultimately, a new narrator was solicited. The final narrator selected was male,
American, and a Structural Engineering student who was clear and easy to understand.
Table 1. Overview of the three structural educational modules.
# Title/Length
Objective 1
Objective 2
Objective 3
Objective 4
Construction To provide overview of To provide overview of strategies To introduce the basic
To provide an overview
Overview: conventional strategies
used in preparing/installing
phases of construction
of falsework, and
1
Structural
of construction for a
conventional rebar and high
of cast-in-place
scaffolding for cast-inSystems
cast-in place
strength post-tensioning tendons columns, beams, shear
place construction.
(11:52 mins)
foundation
for cast-in place construction.
walls, and floors.
To learn basic
To learn basic concepts in
Construction To learn basic phases
requirements for
To learn the additional
preparing/installing conventional
Overview:
of construction for a
falsework, system
activities required
2
rebar and high strength postFoundations
cast-in-place
formwork for cast-in- during poured in place
tensioning tendons for cast-in(12:13 mins)
foundation.
place footing
concrete construction.
place footing construction.
construction.
To introduce ‘Load
Structural
To provide an
To explain several
Continuity’ and its
Components:
introduction to
To describe the different types of
engineering terms such
importance in
3a
Part 1 –
different types of loads
structural components that a
as: Rebar Cages, Steel
considering what
Introduction that a structure must be
structure is composed of.
Reinforcing Bars,
structural elements will
(14:39 mins)
able to carry.
Concrete Curing
carry loads.
Structural
To provide an
To explain the
To introduce the
Components:
overview of
To offer an overview of the
conventional
conventional
3b
Part 2 –
conventional
conventional construction
construction strategies
construction strategies
Construction construction strategies
strategies for shear walls.
for floor slabs in
for beams in structures.
(9:50 mins)
for columns.
structures.
Software Selection & Best Practices
Before producing the first video, a suite of video editing software tools were evaluated to select
the optimum software. The criteria used for evaluation included user-friendly software with a
small learning curve, ability to operate on a laptop and not require massive hard drive space, and
reliability to avoid potential loss of data. Taking these traits into consideration, Adobe Premiere
Pro was selected. During video production, the usability of the software was found to be
excellent. Furthermore, integrating videos and pictures into the final product was
straightforward. However, because an old laptop was being used, the software took up more
space than first anticipated. To resolve this, the data was stored on an external hard drive.
Moreover, the large amount of data used in each video resulted in long production times with
final products that were very large in size (15-20 GB for a single video). To resolve this,
different video file formats were evaluated and MPEG-DVD was chosen as the best compromise
between video quality and video size. The resulting videos (all between 10-15 mins in length)
produced file sizes of around 600 MB. For higher quality videos, MPEG-Blue Ray, which take
up additional space but provide high definition quality videos, could be used. Dissemination of
the videos utilized YouTube giving instantaneous access to teachers and students [10].
10NCEE
Tenth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering
Frontiers of Earthquake Engineering
July 21-25, 2014
Anchorage, Alaska
Implementation in Structural Engineering Curriculum
The first two videos (Construction Overview: Structural Systems, and Construction Overview:
Foundations) were assessed in several courses (Table 2). The Construction Overview: Structural
Systems video was shown and assessed in four courses, with 216 total respondents, allowing
conclusions to be drawn about the difference in opinions depending on the course the student
was taking (student’s course perspective) and on the student level (College Seniors, College
Juniors, and High School students).
Table 2. Courses where video modules were implemented and assessed.
Course #
Name
SE 151B
SE 182
SE 182
# of Responses /
Total in Course
Construction Overview: Structural Systems
74 / 104
Construction Overview: Structural Systems
22 / 30
Construction Overview: Foundations
30 / 30
Video Assessed
Prestressed Concrete
Foundation Engineering
Foundation Engineering
CA State Summer School for
COSMOS
Construction Overview: Structural Systems
Mathematics and Science
SE 103
Conceptual Structural Design Construction Overview: Structural Systems
20 / 23
100 / 140
Student Level
College Senior
College Senior
College Senior
High school
10th-12th
College Junior
Assessments
Student Response Survey
A short survey was designed to measure students’ perceptions of the Construction Overview:
Structural Systems video as an instructional tool used in a course. The assessment instrument
was created to collect information in two main areas. The first consisted of free response
questions with unrestricted length to complete. The intent was to determine what messages the
students were taking away from the video and whether it helped them learn something new, to
identify what students find effective in the video and what they would improve, and to identify
new target audiences who would benefit from viewing the video. These questions included:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Please name at least two main ideas you believe the video was trying to share.
What new ideas did the video help you understand?
What did you find effective about the way the video helped you understand these ideas?
How would you improve this video to better help novices comprehend the concepts?
Describe how you think this video might be used for other audiences or other classes?
Additional Comments
The second part of the survey asked students to answer questions using a 5-point Likert
scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree) related to their perceptions of
cognitive processing (pace, attention and access to information), qualities of the video (narration
and visuals), and personal interest (interest and relevance with career) (Table 3).
Methods
As part of a homework assignment, students were asked to view video 1 (Construction
Overview: Structural Systems) and complete a survey online. Initial feedback during courses
administered in spring 2013 (SE 151B and SE 182) and during the summer COSMOS program
was used to improve the video. Primary feedback after these three assessments resulted in
10NCEE
Tenth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering
Frontiers of Earthquake Engineering
July 21-25, 2014
Anchorage, Alaska
changing the narrator’s voice and guided in the preparation of videos 2, 3a, and 3b. The updated
version of video 1 was further assessed during fall 2013 in SE 103, to determine whether student
perceptions for college juniors differed compared with seniors and high school students
previously assessed. The total number of students who took part in the survey for video 1 was
216. Video 2 (Construction Overview: Foundations) was assessed in spring 2013 in Foundation
Engineering (SE 182). However, the results presented herein will focus on video 1.
Table 3. Video perceptions assessed using Likert scale.
Type of Question
Cognitive
Processing
Quality of Video
Personal Interest
Question
1. I was able to keep up with the pace of the video.
2. I was able to concentrate on the video to the very end.
3. I could comprehend the majority of the narrative.
4. I liked the voice quality of the narrator.
5. The visuals in the video were effectively used to help better convey the main concepts.
6. I was very interested in this video
7. The content of this video is relevant to things I would like to learn.
Results
For video 1, the quantitative questions using the Likert Scale were compared for each course
administered and interval bar graphs were created (Fig. 3). The vertical lines represent 50%
reference points that are drawn to show groupings of strongly agree. As expected, the younger
students (high school and juniors) had a harder time keeping up with the pace of the video.
Interestingly, the high school students were able to concentrate on the video to the very end
while a large percentage of the college students (20% average) were unable to concentrate. The
quality and comprehension of the narrator’s voice was one of the most important elements
assessed. It was expected that the response to the new narrator would significantly improve, but
18% of the students in SE 103 did not like the voice quality of the new narrator while the
average negative response in the other three classes with the old narrator was 23%.
The free response questions seemed to generate more useful information about the
difference in take home messages from video 1 for each class, and whether the objectives or
intent of the video aligned with the take home messages. Responses to the open/free response
questions were coded into thematic categories using an open coding scheme. For each question,
codes were generated based on language that was specific enough to differentiate between what
students were saying. Table 4 shows a summary of the major categories of responses identified
by the participants for SE 182 and ordered from largest to smallest frequency of occurrence.
Similar tables were created for each course. The two top take home messages in each class and
the corresponding percent of students who provided the same responses are summarize in Table
5. Being free response, the percent of responses was often spread among a number of themes.
It seemed that the top responses in each course were biased by the topic the students were
learning in their course. For example, SE 182 (Foundation Engineering) had a top response of
cast-in place foundation. Likewise, SE 151b (Prestressed Concrete) had high responses for rebar
cages and pre/post-tensioning. The COSMOS high school students indicated the importance of
shake tables as a major take home message, aligned with the content of their summer camp
(hands on earthquake engineering projects utilizing an educational shake table). The SE 103
10NCEE
Tenth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering
Frontiers of Earthquake Engineering
July 21-25, 2014
Anchorage, Alaska
conceptual design course had broad responses spread across many coded themes (the two shown
in Table 3 plus construction of beams, columns and shear walls; rebar cages; and the process of
building foundations) indicative of the broad topics taught in their first design course.
7#
7#
6#
6#
5#
5#
Ques.on'
Ques.on'
The coded themes for the first two questions (main take home message, and new topics
that were learned) were mapped to the educational objectives for each video (Table 6). The
results indicate that Objectives 2 and 3 of video 1 were met with over 45% of the students
identifying main take away messages (Question 1) aligned with these objectives. However, the
other two objectives received almost a quarter of the responses each. Question 2 demonstrated
that the objective topics were considered new to many of the students.
4#
4#
3#
3#
2#
2#
1#
1#
0%#
20%#
40%#
60%#
Percent'Response'
80%#
0%#
100%#
7#
7#
6#
6#
5#
5#
4#
3#
2#
2#
1#
1#
20%#
40%#
60%#
Percent'Response'
80%#
c) COSMOS High School Program
80%#
100%#
4#
3#
0%#
40%#
60%#
Percent'Response'
b) SE 151b: Prestressed Concrete
Ques.on'
Ques.on'
a) SE 182: Foundation Engineering
20%#
100%#
0%#
20%#
40%#
60%#
Percent'Response'
80%#
100%#
d) SE 103: Conceptual Structural Design
Questions:
1 I#was#able#to#keep#up#with#the#pace#of#the#video.
2 I#was#able#to#concentrate#on#the#video#to#the#very#end.
3 I#could#comprehend#the#majority#of#the#narrative
4 I#liked#the#voice#quality#of#the#(new)#narrator.
5 The#visuals#in#the#video#were#effectively#used#to#help#better#convey#the#main#concepts.
6 I#was#very#interested#in#this#video.
7 The#content#of#this#video#is#relevant#to#things#I#would#like#to#learn.#
Fig. 3. Quantitative results for video 1 (Construction Overview: Structural Systems).
Tenth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering
Frontiers of Earthquake Engineering
July 21-25, 2014
Anchorage, Alaska
10NCEE
Table 4. Free response coded themes for SE 182 Foundation Engineering.
Question
Two Main Ideas
New Ideas Video
Help You Understand
What was Effective
about the Video
How might Video be
Used for Other
Audiences
How Might Video
Help Novices
Additional
Comments
Code
CF
CO
R
CC
T
F
FP
BI
SF
CC
FP
F
FW
SF
T
R
ST
E
A
D
P
N
C
HS
D
N
A
D
S
SU
L
N
C
HD
S
MU
Theme
Cast-in place foundation
Construction of Beams, Columns and Shear Walls
Rebar/rebar cage;
Concrete pouring; concrete construction;
Pre- and/or post- tensioning;
Framework; formwork; falsework;
The process/procedure/concepts of building foundations
Base Isolators
Safety for workers
Concrete pouring; concrete construction
The process/procedure/concepts of building foundations
Framework; formwork; falsework
Importance of formwork/Multiple uses
Safety for workers
Pre- and/or post- tensioning
Rebar/rebar cage
Slump test
Many examples and pictures
Animations
Use of demonstration and videos
Provide many details and describe the process (step-by-step)
Use of narration/narrator
Used in a class
Used in a class (for high school students)
Demonstrate engineering design
Narrator should be more energetic and slow down
Add animations/ Better quality
Provide more details and explanations
Using simple terms
Add sub titles / video and audio did not match
Like the video
The narrator should slow down and be more energetic
Request more videos likes these in class
Higher Resolution Pictures needed
It's more construction - less structural design
Add music in the background
# of Respondents
12
11
6
4
4
3
3
3
1
8
5
5
5
5
2
2
2
8
6
5
4
2
19
5
1
9
5
4
4
2
5
2
1
1
1
1
Table 5. Top two take home messages for video 1 (Construction Overview: Structural Systems).
Course #
SE 182
SE 151b
COSMOS
SE 103
Top Response
% Responses
Cast-in place foundation (coded as CF)
40%
Construction of Beams, Columns and
Shear Walls (coded as CO)
Construction of Beams, Columns and
Shear Walls (coded as CO)
Cast-in place construction
(coded as CP)
14.4%
52.2%
30.7%
2nd Response
Construction of Beams, Columns
and Shear Walls (coded as CO)
% Responses
Rebar/rebar cage (coded as R)
14.4%
Importance of Shake Tables
(coded as ST)
Concrete pouring; concrete
construction (coded as CC)
36.7%
26.1%
14%
The most common attributes the participants identified as effective include the use of: 1)
many examples and photos, 2) demonstrations, 3) narration and 4) time lapse to show sequence.
Further they believed these videos could be used to demonstrate engineering design and should
be used as part of class. The most common complaints the participants made about the video
include: 1) the narrator should be more energetic and slow down, 2) better quality animations
should be added, and 3) more details and explanations should be provided.
10NCEE
Tenth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering
Frontiers of Earthquake Engineering
July 21-25, 2014
Anchorage, Alaska
Table 6. Mapping of Responses to Video Objectives.
Question'1:'Two'Main'Ideas'from'Video
Question'2:'New'Ideas'from'Video
Mapping'to'
#'of'
%'
Mapping'to'
#'of'
%'
Coded'Themes Responses Responses Coded'Themes Responses
Responses
Objective
1
2
3
4
To provide an overview of the conventional strategies of
construction for a cast-in place foundation
To provide an overview of strategies used in preparing and
installing conventional rebar and high strength post-tensioning
tendons for cast-in place construction.
To introduce the basic phases of construction of cast-in-place
columns, beams, shear walls, and floors.
To provide an overview of falsework, and scaffolding for castin-place construction.
CF,$FP,$CC,$CT
69
21.8%
CC,$FP
51
24.8%
R,$T,$CC,$CP,$CT
152
47.9%
T,$R,$RC
52
25.2%
CO,$CC,$CP,$CT
142
44.8%
CO,$CC,$SW
32
15.5%
85
26.8%
F,$FW,$SF
61
29.6%
CP,$CT,$SF
Recommendations and Conclusions
After reviewing the data collected from a survey of 4 classes and 216 students, a number of
recurring issues became apparent:
1. On average about 10% of the students found it hard to keep up with the pace of the video
either due to narration pace, or amount of information in the videos with the high school
students struggling the most (16%).
2. On average about 15% of the students found it hard to concentrate throughout the video
with the high school students showing more focus and ability to concentrate to the end.
3. On average about 23% of the students did not favor the narrator’s voice quality.
4. A majority of the students were content with the amount of visuals used in the videos,
could comprehend the majority of the narrative, were interested in the video, and found
the content of the video relevant to things they would like to learn.
It was surprising that the response to the new narrator in SE 103 was as negative as the
first narrator assessed in the three other courses. The video narration will be assessed further in
future classes to get more representative feedback. In terms of length of the videos, one student
commented that “the video is too long … novices will be bored before finishing the entire
video.” The production team seriously considered the duration of the videos in an effort to
maintain students’ attention. The goal was to create videos that were 10 mins or less
corresponding to approximately 20% of a typical class. This feedback led to splitting video 3 into
two parts, one that provides background on beams, columns, walls, and floors, and a second that
highlights the construction process of these components using the 5-story building case study.
Scripts for two nonstructural component videos (one on the installation/fabrication of
Egress systems such as elevators and stairs and one on facades) have been developed and the
video production is in its final stages. These modules, along with the structural modules already
produced, will be assessed extensively in upcoming relevant courses. One final non-structural
video on medical equipment is being considered. The videos will be broadly disseminated to
university educators, students, researchers, and practitioners through the NEES Academy [11].
Overall the videos seem to benefit the learning of a variety of students (high school to
engineering and construction college seniors), particularly since they introduce topics of
construction of structural members and systems that are not normally emphasized in traditional
structural engineering curriculum. The assessments demonstrate the effectiveness of bringing
10NCEE
Tenth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering
Frontiers of Earthquake Engineering
July 21-25, 2014
Anchorage, Alaska
large-scale experimentation through the use of video modules into the classroom to increase the
understanding of practical construction and engineering techniques. If funding and expertise is
available, the authors encourage all researchers doing large-scale structural testing to develop
educational videos that make use of the extensive data collected during testing.
Acknowledgments
The BNCS project is a collaboration between four academic institutions (UCSD, San Diego State
University, Howard University, and Worcester Polytechnic Institute), four government or
granting agencies (the National Science Foundation, the Englekirk Advisory Board, the Charles
Pankow Foundation, and the California Seismic Safety Commission), over 40 industry partners,
and two oversight committees. The authors thank the many researchers and other supporters of
this project [1]. Funding for the development of the video modules was provided by the NEES
site educational support (CMMI-0927178) and NEES research projects (CMMI-0936505),
funded by the National Science Foundation. Narration provided by Eimear Corrigan and Roberto
Gorostiza, and early support of video production and data collection of Sina Farsipour-Naghibi
and Michelle Chen, are greatly appreciated. Opinions and findings of this study are of the
authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the sponsors.
References
1.
Full-Scale Structural and Nonstructural Building System Performance during Earthquakes & Post-Earthquake
Fire Project Website, bncs.ucsd.edu.
2.
Litzinger TA, Lattuca LR, Hadgraft RG, Newstetter WC, Engineering Education and the Development of
Expertise, Journal of Engineering Education 2011; 100(1): 123-150.
3.
Wierstra RFA, Kanselaarl G, Van der Linden JL, Lodewijks, HGLC, & Vermunt JD, The impact of the
university context on European students’ learning approaches and learning environment preferences, Higher
Education 2003; 45(4): 503–523.
4.
Atman CJ, Sheppard SD, Turns J, Adams RS, Fleming, LN, Stevens R, . . . Lund D, Enabling engineering
student success: The final report for the Center for the Advancement of Engineering Education, 2010, Retrieved
from http://www.engr.washington.edu/caee/CAEE%20final%20report%2020100909.pdf.
5.
Ambrose SA, Bridges MW, DiPietro M, Lovett MC, and Norman MK, How learning works: Seven researchbased principles for smart teaching, Jossey-Bass, 2010.
6.
Chen HL, Lattuca LR, and Hamilton ER, Conceptualizing Engagement: Contributions of Faculty to Student
Engagement in Engineering, Journal of Engineering Education 2008; 97(3): 339-353.
7.
Heller RS, Beil C, Dam K, and Haerum B, Student and Faculty Perceptions of Engagement in Engineering,
Journal of Engineering Education 2010; 99(3): 253-261.
8.
Smith K, Sheppard SD, Johnson DW, Johnson RT, Pedagogies of Engagement: Classroom-Based Practices,
Journal of Engineering Education 2005; 94(1): 87-101.
9. Regan M and Sheppard S, Interactive Multimedia Courseware and the Hands-on Learning Experience: An
Assessment Study, Journal of Engineering Education 1996; 85(2): 123-132.
10. http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCiG-hr3sjTNNL34yyiRyBuw?feature=watch
11. https://nees.org/education