Improving Active Learning and
Instant Feedback in an Introductory
Engineering Course
Caleb H. Farny
Sean B. Andersson
Dept of Mechanical Engineering
BU Instructional Innovation Conference
March 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 + tablet
1. 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
100
A, all
90
B, all
A, no LEAP
80
Score (%)
B, no LEAP
70
60
50
40
30
Quiz
Exam 1
Exam 2
• RULE section performed higher on all tests
• Exclusion of LEAP students widens the margin
Final
Overall comparison
4
3.5
GPA
3
A, all
B, all
2.5
A, no LEAP
B, no LEAP
2
1.5
1
A
B
A
Course GPA
B
A
B
A
Overall GPA
B
GPA Dependence
Does 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 Dependence
Does 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 Dependence
Does 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
Course level of difficulty
Easy
Difficult
Section B
Overall course rating
Section A
Instructor's presentation of subject material
Ability to motivate and create interest
Explanation of basic concepts & principles
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