Welcome to the TAR Capstone Series
What to Expect from My TAR Project?
Alumni Reflect on the TAR Experience
Shan He
Faizan Zubair
Kyle O’Connell
Graduate student,
Graduate student,
Department of Chemical and Department of Biology,
University of Texas at
Biomolecular Engineering,
Arlington
Vanderbilt University
Session begins at 4-5:30 ET/3-4:30 PM CT/2-3:30 MT/1-2:30 PT. Please
configure your audio by running the Audio Set Up Wizard: Tools>Audio>Audio
Set Up Wizard.
Post-Doc, Department
of Architecture
Iowa State University
www.cirtl.net
Student’s attitude towards building
energy modeling: A pilot study to
improve integrated design education
Shan He
Department of Architecture
Iowa State University
Introduction
• Class Content:
• A new energy modeling course for architectural students to develop design
argument considering the following building performance: solar heating, natural
ventilation and daylighting at different design stage.
• Organization:
• 3-credit elective, meet once every Friday for 2.5h with a combination of lecture and
lab.
• Students submit report for each software introduced in this class as homework,
and work on the same project in a group of 1~4 at the end of semester and make a
group presentation.
• 13 architectural students ranging from undergraduate Year #3 to graduate Year #3.
• Grading:
• The completion of utilizing all the 6 software introduced and use them to assist
design decision making and develop design argument.
Data Collection Methods
• 1- Questionnaires
•
•
One pre-survey at the beginning of the semester, one after each session, 7 in total
Likert scale, General attitude to this class, software and pedagogy.
• 2- Class presentation audio recording
•
•
At the end of semester, 1 in total
Recording students defense of their design argument.
• 3- Individual interview
•
•
Close to the end of the semester, only once
Basically follow the questionnaire structure and get a deeper understanding of the students’ answer (especially
blank and ‘not sure’ answer).
Timeline
Project Design Timeline
Oct. 31, 2014
Nov. 15, 2014
Nov. 30, 2014
Dec. 15, 2014
Jan. 12, 2015
Agreement on the
research question,
continue Literature
review
Start IRB and
design
questionnaires,
continue Literature
review
Finalize data
collection method
details, continue
Literature review
Finish IRB,
continue
Literature
review
Start TAR with
the class
Survey Implementation Timeline
Jan. 19, 2015
Feb. 9, 2015
Mar. 27, 2015
Apr. 10, 2015
Introduce the
project in class and
send out digital
survey
Change digital presurvey to printed
version and send
out in class
Send out 2 post- 1- Send out the rest
survey in printed 4 post-survey in
version in class
printed version in
class;
2- Start individual
interview
May 9, 2015
1- Final
presentation;
2- Finish
individual
interview
Conclusion
• 1- Differentiate the class level
• 2- Change the class meeting time from once every week to
twice every week
• 3- Integrated with design studio education
Lessons learnt for TAR data collection
• 1- Limited students amount, low attendance and off-schedule homework
schedule delayed the data collection.
• May be solved with reorganizing the class meeting time.
• 2- Not being an instructor, data collection method is limited.
• Incentives is very important. Gift card or optional assignment.
• 3- Not being an instructor or TA, there could be some technical issues with
sharing data. E.g. access the students’ homework.
• 4- A lot of undecided about the software evaluation. Future follow-up interview
is planned. In the next semester, I may be able to collect information from
design studio with students enrolled in Arch 351 as a control group, and those
who are not enrolled for a comparison.
Future Work
• 1- Assess the students’ understanding of software input and
output;
• 2- Design a new survey for all the architectural students from
undergraduate year #3 to graduate year #3
• 3- Focus group and individual interview
CIRTL TAR Capstone Series
October 5th 2015
3 pm CT
Promoting Active Learning in
Engineering Classrooms
Faizan Zubair1, Cynthia Brame2, Paul Laibinis1
1Chemical
& Biomolecular Engineering
2Center for Teaching
•
•
•
Online modules developed to address a teaching and learning “problem”
Grounded in understanding of how people learn
Teaching-as-research: Assessment of module impact on student learning
First semester:
Design and develop online
learning module(s)
Second semester:
Implement and assess online
learning module(s)
Bloom’s Taxonomy: The Hierarchy of Knowledge
The goal is to enable higher-level learning in-class
through the design and application of new instructional materials
Target Classroom:
Undergraduate Chemical Engineering Thermodynamics
• Student understanding of thermodynamic efficiency is limited
– Student can apply equations for simple systems
– For a system of components, student show a lack of understanding
• We address this disconnect by designing and applying
new instructional tools to help enable higher level
learning in the classroom
Socrative
A versatile platform for interactive teaching
•
•
•
•
Real-time feedback
Short time as well as discussion based questions
Easy to share results with the class
Good for group work
Process for Developing Videos
• Recording Software
• Camtasia
• Screencast-O-Matic
• Videopad for Video-editing
• Wacom Board
• Upload the video on Youtube
• Use Hapyak to integrate questions
Building analogies for thermodynamic efficiency
Video 1 & 2
Thermodynamic System
Heat losses to the
surroundings
Internal Energy
Electrical energy
Currency Analogy
Transaction Costs
Example: Broker Fees
Market
Compute efficiency of a unit component
Video 3
Heat losses to the
surroundings
Electrical energy
Internal Energy
25 W of power for 60 sec
Δ 𝐼𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦
𝐸𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦 =
𝐸𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑑
Raises temperature
from 20 °C to 50 ° C
Compute efficiency for system of components
Video 4
 Synchronized audio-video
 Step-wise approach to problem solving
 Assessments for students
Assessing the effectiveness of the Module
Jan
Feb
Mar
Implementation
Assessments
Start of Spring 2015 semester
PS #3 (Feb 2nd), Monetary Analogy
PS #4 (Feb 9th), Efficiency of the Heating Element
Quiz 4 (Mar 9th)
PS #6 (Mar 11th), Efficiency of the Rankine Cycle
Exam II questions (Mar 19th)
Student Attitude Survey (Mar 20th)
Apr
Formative assessments as part of the videos
Formative assessments as part of the videos
Problem on the Homework Assignment
View the video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSukYclkQqo&feature=youtu.be&hd=1 and answer
the following questions:
For the process described in the video employing a 100% and an 80% efficient turbine, the overall process
efficiency changed from 36.6% to 29.36%. Determine the percent increase or decrease in the rate of
cooling demands for the process caused by the use of the 80% efficient turbine if
a) The rate of heat provided to the process remained the same.
b) The net rate of power generation remained the same.
c) Determine the overall process efficiency if instead the pump was 80% efficient and the turbine was
100% efficient. Is your result greater than, less than, or the same as the 29.36% in the video?
Pop Quiz Results didn’t show a difference in
student learning early in the semester
Quiz 4
Total
(10 points)
2013
6.4 ± 2.3
2015
6.1 ± 2.3
Summative Assessment: Test II Results
Student performance on Power Generation Cycle improved in 2015
2011
2015
0 - 50
23%
0 - 50
28%
80 - 100
43%
80 - 100
63%
50 - 80
14%
50 - 80
29%
Average Score: 65.0
Average Score: 73.0
Summative Assessment: Test II Results
Student performance on Refrigeration Cycle improved in 2015
2010
2015
80 - 100
12%
50 - 80
30%
0 - 50
15%
0 - 50
58%
Average Score: 54.1
80 - 100
54%
50 - 80
31%
Average Score: 73.9
Student Perception Survey I
Students found videos to be an effective learning strategy
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
The videos were an effective way to
reinforce thermodynamic concepts
20%
68%
10%
2%
0%
It was helpful to watch the videos on
my own time and pace
32%
58%
8%
2%
0%
The material covered in videos
related well to concepts covered in
class and problem sets
28%
58%
14%
0%
0%
I watched at least one of the videos multiple times to help me understand a
particular concept?
60% of the students said yes!
Student Perception Survey II
Students supported the use of videos for other classes
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
It will be nice to have more videos to
understand other thermodynamic
concepts
44%
48%
8%
0%
0%
It will be nice to have videos to
illustrate concepts in other chemical
engineering classes
38%
54%
8%
0%
0%
Suggested topics for Thermodynamics
Departure Functions
Fugacity
Equations of State
Generalized co-relations
Conclusions
• Challenges
– Time management
• TA: Balance research with teaching
• Students: Designed so that no additional time for students
• Faculty: ?
– Learning curve: access to technology specialist
• Content-specific deployment
– Helpful to know the material well
– Target the instructional materials to challenging concepts + tie it
to homework
– Knowing the professor helps; recognizes research demands
• Advice
– Don’t over commit yourself
Acknowledgements
• Center for Teaching
Cynthia Brame, Assistant Director
Rhet McDaniel, Educational Technologist
• BOLD Cohort Group
Dave Caudel
Emilianne McCranie
Udo Chinyere
Ty McCleery
Mary Keithly
• Funding
National Science Foundation grant DUE-1231286 to the CIRTL Network
Assessing Peer Instruction in an
Undergraduate Biology Classroom
Kyle O’Connell
Department of Biology
University of Texas Arlington
Questions
1) What effects does Peer Instruction have on student
learning?
a) Do males and females perform differently on PI?
b) Are there differences in attendance?
c) Are there quiz vs exam performance differences?
2) What is the relationship between quiz and exam
performance?
Does Peer Instruction Improve Student Learning Outcomes?
Peer Instruction:
Experimental
Group
Traditional Quiz:
Control Group
Same Course,
but two different sections
Compare Quiz
and Exam
Performance
Question 1: What effects does Peer Instruction have on student learning?
a) Are there differences in performance between the sexes?
Ttest=.801
No difference is
observed
b) Are there differences in attendance?
Ttest =.401
No difference between sections
Did PI help Section1 do better on Quiz Questions
then Section 2?
ttest=.574
Did PI help Section1 do better on Exam Questions
then Section 2?
ttest=.367
What is the relationship between quizzes and exam
scores?
Correlation coefficient= .725
What is the relationship between quizzes and exam
scores?
Correlation coefficient= .289
Conclusions
1. PI Quizzes influenced exam performance
2. Traditional quizzes had little effect on exam scores
1. However…PI did not influence quiz scores,
exam scores, or attendance.
Upcoming Events
All-Network Mid-Project Presentations
November 16, 4-5:30 ET/3-4:30 PM CT/2-3:30 MT/12:30 PT
Presenters:
Current TAR students throughout the CIRTL Network.
Stay tuned for a call for speakers!
To sign up to hear about these and other CIRTL events, email
info@cirtl.net.
www.cirtl.net