Upload
elsu
View
56
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
TABLET PCS - DIGITAL PEN-BASED TECHNOLOGY USE AND THE IMPACT ON EDUCATING ENGINEERS. Enhancing the student learning environment Robert Garrick, Ph.D., P.E. – Rochester Institute of Technology Elizabeth Dell - Rochester Institute of Technology - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Enhancing the student learning environment
Robert Garrick, Ph.D., P.E. – Rochester Institute of TechnologyElizabeth Dell - Rochester Institute of TechnologyLarry Villasmil, Ph.D. – Rochester Institute of TechnologyRobert P. Lillis – Evalumetrics Research
TABLET PCS - DIGITAL PEN-BASED TECHNOLOGY USE AND THE IMPACT ON
EDUCATING ENGINEERS
1
Contents• Problem Statement• Education Research – What has been Done• Instructional and Technology Domain• Methodology• Blended Experiment Design, Why
• Examples• Findings• Next Steps
2
Problem Statement• Although a significant number of programs exist to attract and retain
students into engineering/engineering technology programs, five year graduation rates only range from 10% to 40% of the initial entering freshman engineering cohort [1].
• Compared to others, engineering programs have the longest time to completion [2].
• Students that leave an engineering program are seldom replaced [3].
• The majority of the attrition occurs during the first three years [4].
• A primary cause of the high attrition rates in engineering/engineering technology programs is the perception that the learning environment is often un-motivating and unwelcoming. [5]
3
1. (Maura J. Borrego, Miguel A. Padilla, Guili Zhang, Consortium for Student Data Exchange). 2. (Fortenberry, et. al., 2007; Ohland, et.al.,2008; Seymour and Hewitt, 1997) 3. (Ohland et. al., 2008). 4. (Borrego, Padilla). 5. (Bergval, Sorby, and Worthen, 1994; Busch-Vishniac and Jarosz, 2004; Harris, et. al., 2004; Salter and Persaud,
2003; Sax, 1994; Vogt, Hocevar, and Hagedorn, 2007).
Solutions – What has been Done
1. (Karl A. Smith & Goldstein, 1982; Karl A. Smith, Johnson, & Johnson, 1981; Felder, 1995; Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1991, 1998, 2007; MacGregor, Cooper, Smith, & Robinson, 2000; Millis & Cottell, 1997; Prince, 2004; K.A. Smith, Cox, & Douglas, 2009; Karl A. Smith, Sheppard, Johnson, & Johnson, 2005; Terenzini, Cabrera, Colbeck, Parente, & Bjorklund, 2001)
2. (Hake, 1998).3. (Crouch, 2001)
4
• Creating an engaging and cooperative learning environment has been a key issue in engineering education for many decades [1].
• A seminal and comprehensive study [2] found a substantial improvement in conceptual understanding of physics principles through interactive engagement of students in heads-on (always) and hands-on (usually) activities which yield immediate feedback.
• Key elements of interactive engagement include [3]: a) cooperative learning activities b) group problem solving.
A Local Pilot Study (Pilot #1 study)
5
• The Pilot #1 study established [1]:
a) students who had a lower GPA entering the class (GPA >2.0, but <3.0) experienced the most significant increase in test scores in the class.
b) The class involved in Pilot #1 study was a late freshman/early sophomore engineering introductory class that had traditionally a high (>15%) rate of withdrawals, and D or F grades. Over the three year pilot #1 study, the withdrawal, D and F grades rate fell below 10%. (Parthum, 2009).
Solutions – What has been Done
1. (Parthum, 2009)
A Typical Introductory Eng/ET Course • The Pneumatic and Hydraulic Systems course is offered at Rochester
Institute of Technology (RIT) to second year students. • The course has had a high rate of low grades and withdrawals
averaging 22.8% over the last ten times it was taught
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
45.0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
% D, W, or F grade
6
Solutions – A Diagnostic
Solutions
• A previous study (Pilot study #1) within the RIT department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering Technology (MMET) demonstrated that Tablet PC based lectures helped students who had lower GPAs [1].
• A Tablet PC lecture environment has also been reported to increase student interest and involvement [2].
7
A Technology Rich Learning environment
1. (Parthum, 2009)2. (Berque, Johnson, & Jovanovic, 2001; Birmingham, DiStasi, & Welton, 2009; Chidanandan et al., 2007;
Chidanandan et al., 2008; Johri & Lohani, 2008; Lohani, Castles, Johri, Spangler, & Kibler, 2008; Sneller, 2007; Stanton, 2008).
Conceptual Framework of selecting the technology tools to enhance the learning environment
Benlloch-Dualde, J.V. ; Buendía, F; Cano J.C; Supporting instructors in designing Tablet PC based courses
8
Instruction/Technology Domain
Benlloch-Dualde, J.V. ; Buendía, F; Cano J.C; Supporting instructors in designing Tablet PC based courses
9
What and Why actions of the InstructorInstruction/Technology Domain
Benlloch-Dualde, J.V. ; Buendía, F; Cano J.C; Supporting instructors in designing Tablet PC based courses
10
Tablet PC specificInstruction/Technology Domain
• Activities to Engage Students– Delivering Course Content … Multiple screens and display hardware. – Gathering Content feedback… Polls, group/individual practice.– Course Laboratory Practice… Using Tablet/Collaborative software
environment. – Course Review Session Competition… Team environment
11
Blended Experiment DesignMethodology
PREVIOUS SLIDECURRENT SLIDE
AUXILIARY SCREENVIDEOS / SUPPORT MATERIAL
12
Delivering Course Content – Multi-display FeaturesMethodology – Examples
13
Gathering Content Feedback – Polls, group/individual practice
Methodology – Examples
How do I connect this circuit? (use a different color for each line)
Course Laboratory Practice – Using Tablet/Collaborative software environment
Methodology – Examples
Competition Structure:• Two teams of students (Red team – Blue team)• Three subgroups per team (six total groups)• Six “rounds” of competition (timed)• Three problems per round (one problem per group)
Results:• Students exposed to 18 different problems for review in one class period• Students electronic notebooks have their solutions and those of other groups to review
different approaches along with instructor solutions • Students receive problem solving suggestions from team members• Instructor able to monitor progress of teams with the collaborative software monitoring
feature and personalize instruction.
Opportunity:• Utilize Tablet / Collaborative Software environment to create a competitive team based review
sessionAdvantages:• Students involved (engaged) in completing problems rather than “traditional” instructor solved
problems, timely feedback on errors, peer to peer mentoring with group work, ability to solve multiple problems simultaneously
Blue Team Red Team
Groups 1 & 4
Groups 2 & 5
Groups 3 & 6
15
Course Review Session Competition– Team environment
Methodology – Examples
Study Period Class # of Students Experimental design
Evaluation Method
Fall 2009 Pneumatics and Hydraulics
25 Computer lab vs. TLT studio
Post Survey and focus group
Fall 2010 Pneumatics and Hydraulics
75 Computer lab vs. TLT studio
Post Survey and focus group
Fall 2010 Dynamics Recitation
80 TLT studio (2 classes) – Standard room 2 classes)
Post Survey and focus group
Fall 2010 Thermo-Fluids 25 TLT Studio Post Survey and focus group
Spring 2011 Applied Fluid Dynamics
25 TLT Studio Post Survey and focus group 16
Pilot Study #2 - ~ 230 studentsFindings - Scope
17
• ~ Even distribution among 2nd, 3rd and 4th/5th year students• ~ Normal distribution of entering GPAs• All full time students.• Most students between 18 and 22 years old with 3.7% above 23.During Lectures:• 83% reported usually taking notes using a pen/pencil and notebook. • 8% reported usually taking notes using a laptop /desktop computer.• 14% reported usually not taking notes during lectures
1st year 0%2nd year 38%3rd year 31%4th year 10%5th year 21%
Academic Year Distribution
2.0 to 2.5 11%2.5 to 3.0 36%3.0 to 3.5 36%3.5 to 4.0 17%
Entering Class GPA Distribution
Student DemographicsFindings - Scope
18
• 14% of the students preferred the traditional/standard lecture learning environment.
• Students preferred the following alternative lecture environment features: ( % of preferred/strongly preferred)• Instructor’s notes directly over the presented PowerPoint during lecture (81%)• Animations or videos incorporated into the PowerPoint lecture (78%)• Group problem solving work (74%)• Example problems completed by the instructor (72%)• Tablets, collaboration software and multi-screen projection (71%)• Real time integration of lecture and student’s personal notes (68%)
• These preferences for the lecture environment features were consistent over the academic year but such preferences increased with student academic year.
Pilot #2 ResultsFindings
19
• Students responded that they were more likely to take notes in the technology rich lecture environment particularly third, fourth or fifth year students including students with the lowest GPA entering the class.
• Students reported that they were more likely to use these notes for both homework and pre-test reviews primarily the students with the lowest GPA who reported improved comprehension of the material.
Pilot #2 ResultsFindings
• Students preferred solving problems in class using the technology rich environment.
• Students overwhelmingly agreed that working virtually in groups was an effective method to do in-class problem solving.
• The ability to make corrections seeing them immediately and the ability to watch the process were the most common positive comments.
• Recalling Hake, “interactive engagement” is “designed in part to promote conceptual understanding through engagement of students in heads-on (always) and hands-on (usually) activities which yield immediate feedback through discussion with peers and/or instructors” (p 65) (Hake, 1998).
• The focus group facilitator asked questions about the use of the tablet PCs, group work, note taking, preparation for tests and overall learning.
• An independent evaluator reviewed video recordings of the focus groups and scored each student remark as positive or negative in one of several categories.
20
Focus Group Comments Positive
Comments Total
Comments Proportion
Positive Active Learning 11 11 100.0% Learning 4 4 100.0% Engagement 14 15 93.3% Prepare for Tests 4 5 80.0% Take Notes 20 28 71.4% Group Work 21 30 70.0% Involved in process 5 10 50.0%
Pilot #2 Results – Focus GroupFindings
• Overall, the students recommended using the technology rich lecture environment.
• Students with a lower entering GPA perceived a greater benefit from this learning environment.
• Results appear in agreement with those found in the seminal work of Hake and others that an interactive and engaging learning environment can result in improved student learning of the material.
• A technology rich environment allows the instructor to implement an interactive and engaging learning environment using digital media, Tablet PCs and collaborative software.
• A technology rich environment also increases student likelihood of note taking and using these notes (especially for the attrition vulnerable population with lower GPAs).
21
Main ConclusionsFindings
Next Steps• Continue our studies of this environment with focus on:• Students with a lower entering GPA• Rochester Institute of Technology’s Deaf and hard of hearing students
• Ability to see note-taker’s notes live• 3 screen display • Ability to play-back pen-stroke by pen-stroke each slide
• Underrepresented groups• Anonymity of technology rich environment
• Work with others external to Rochester Institute of Technology to support rigorous engineering/STEM education research grant opportunities
22