We believe active-cooperative learning (ACL), classroom assessment techniques and technology are cornerstones of the shift to these new paradigms for enhancing student learning. Nearly 600 experimental and over 100 correlational studies have been conducted on the effectiveness of ACL. A meta analysis indicates that ACL results in higher academic achievement (“knowledge acquisition, retention, accuracy, creativity in problem-solving, and higher level reasoning”), helps students develop more caring and supportive relationships, and contributes to greater psychological health and self esteem (Johnson, et. al., 1998, p. 31-32)⁸.

Classroom assessment techniques (CATs) are used for monitoring and enhancing learning. Angelo and Cross (1993)¹ indicate that the primary purpose of teaching is to improve student learning. We often assume that our students are learning what we teach them, however, upon grading tests, we realize that students have not learned. Faculty and students need to monitor learning on a continuous basis provide additional learning opportunities if necessary.

TABLE 1

Comparison of Old and New Paradigms for College Teaching

(Smith and Waller, 1997)

	OLD PARADIGMS	NEW PARADIGMS
Teaching assumption	Any subject matter expert can teach	Teaching is complex and requires considerable training & effort
Knowledge	Transferred from faculty to students	Jointly constructed by students and faculty
Students	Passive vessel to be filled by faculty’s knowledge	Active constructor, discoverer, transformer of knowledge
Faculty’s Purpose	Classify and sort students	Develop students’ competencies and talents
Context	Competitive/Individualistic	Cooperative learning
Power	Faculty holds and exercises power, authority, and control	Students are empowered: power is shared among students and between students and faculty
Technology use	Drill and practice; substitute textbook	Problem solving, communication, collaboration

This paper describes implementation of “dynamic” or “new paradigm” strategies in statics classes. These strategies ranged from active learning to keeping personal portfolios, from daily attention quizzes to group projects. These strategies were used in various sized classes, ranging from 50 to 175 students. While data obtained are similar, data from the smaller section (50 students) are described in detail in this paper.

Strategies Implemented

Freilich (1987)⁶ did a survey of 213 students and 23 teachers asking about factors that help students to learn. Two items highly rated by both students and teachers are study problems (homework) on new material and prompt feedback on student work. In a separate NDSU survey conducted by the authors, 94% of students in 12 classes of varying sizes indicated that getting quick feedback on their work was more important than class size. As indicated in Table 1, knowledge should be jointly constructed by students and faculty with students being active constructors, discoverers, and transformers of knowledge. Thus, while not a new strategy, it is essential for students to do homework on a daily basis. It is equally important to provide prompt feedback to students. Having students check each other’s homework at the beginning of each class period is one way to enable prompt feedback (Mafi, 1989, Yokomoto and Ware, 1991)^{9, 21}. Students trade papers and the homework solutions are discussed by the instructor using an overhead projector. The student grading procedures are discussed and standardized for the students at the start of the semester and include various checks to maintain the integrity of the grading process. The homework grades are recorded on optical-scan sheets and students save their homework in their course portfolio. The specific details of this procedure are described by Mehta and Schlecht (1998)¹²

To encourage active participation and to keep the students engaged, a typical class period is divided into two or three mini-lectures of 15 to 20 minutes each. After a mini-lecture, students are given one or two multiple-choice questions. Students discuss answers to these questions in an informal group of neighbors. The voice level during these two to three minute periods increases, reflecting the level of interaction and collaboration going on in the classroom. The multiple-choice questions can be formulated to test knowledge and comprehension as defined by Bloom’s Taxonomy (Bloom, 1956)². The taxonomy (knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation) provides a useful structure by which to categorize questions. A useful handbook on designing and managing multiple choice questions at all levels of the taxonomy was developed at the University of Cape Town, South Africa and can be accessed over the World Wide Web (Carneson, et. al., 1997)³.

At the end of this brief period of collarboration, students are required to raise a flashcard displaying a letter corresponding to an answer to the multiple-choice question. (Additional details on the flashcard method are given in Mehta, 1995.)¹⁴ This encourages active collaborative learning and 100% participation in large classes. It also allows students to assess their understanding and provides instant assessment to the instructor and student about their understanding of the concepts just discussed. Answers to these mid-class questions are discussed but not graded.

At the end of each class period, an attention quiz (AQ) is given. The quiz contains two to four multiple choice questions covering critical ideas and concepts discussed in the class (Mehta, 1997 and 1993, Panitz, 1996)^13,15,16. Again the students use optical scan sheets to record their answers (the same scan sheets used for the homework). AQs encourage students to pay attention and try to understand and clarify the concepts discussed in each class since they have the quiz at the end of the class. The AQ gives students immediate feedback about their understanding of the material and provides the instructor with an assessment of student learning at the end of every class. If necessary, the instructor can go over that topic again in the next class. Discussing AQ solutions at the beginning of the next class session provides a brief review and highlights of the previous class.

Web technology has been used for several course support activities. Most importantly, two special programs are developed to provide quick feedback to students. The Daily Homework and Quiz Manager (DHQM) allows both instructors and students to monitor the learning process on a daily basis and to quickly point out need for corrective action, if necessary (Mehta and Schlecht, 1998). Students view their grade and class averages via the web. The graphical display allows them to monitor their performance trends over several days. Reports, automatically generated for instructors, allow determination of how well concepts or topics are mastered by students. The Personalized Assessment System for Success (PASS) contains grades from homework, AQs, and regular quizzes (exams). An updated, weighted grade average reflecting each students’ status at that point in the semester is included. This gives students early warning if the total grade is low. PASS also has learning modules (like an on-line advisor) containing study tips, time management, test-taking tips, and learning styles. Additional uses of the web include providing solution hints for the more challenging homework problems.

In addition to informal, in-class group activities using flashcards, formal group projects outside of class are assigned. Formal groups with three members are formed. Each group has a student from the top, middle, and bottom third of the class as ranked by a composite performance index. The performance index is based on students’ cumulative GPA and their grade in Calculus I, a statics pre-requisite (Mehta, 1998)¹¹.

The student groups were assigned four projects during the semester. It appears that three to four projects in a semester is ideal since it is difficult for students to meet due to their schedules. The projects were chosen to acquaint the students, encourage them to recognize and appreciate their individual strengths and weaknesses, develop positive interdependence, collaborate to achieve a common goal, learn from each other, and have fun. The four projects were: a) shooting basketball from a free throw line and determining their percentage success rate; b) analyzing their learning styles and discussing similarities and differences; c) individually generating a creative item like a joke, cartoon, or poetry, and coming to a consensus about the “best” item in their group; and, d) designing an optimum roof truss.

As in previous work (e.g., Danielson & Danielson, 1994)⁵, these formal groups were encouraged to study and prepare for examinations together. The groups also took collaborative in-class quizzes. The group members discussed how to solve the quiz problem in the first three to four minutes with no writing permitted. In the following 15 minutes, each student solved the quiz problem individually as in a regular quiz. This process enhances student capabilities in problem solving, critical thinking, teamwork, and communication.

The format of in-class tests and quizzes was also changed. Originally, three in-semester hour exams and a comprehensive final exam had been conducted. However, students did not prepare until just before the test. This “binge” studying is not a good practice as the amount of materials is large and difficult to master in a short intensive study effort. The examination format was changed to 10 major “quizzes” over the semester followed by a comprehensive final exam.

Results

These strategies were used in statics sections of 50 and 100 students during the 1997-1998 academic year. Based on student data, many of the strategies were also repeated in a statics section of 175 students in the fall semester of 1998. Student rating data from the section of 50 students are presented in detail. These data were used since a section size of 50 is more common in engineering programs. Data from the 100-student section show similar trends and the Fall 1998 data have not been fully analyzed. However, cumulative results from all three sections are presented to illustrate major similarities, differences, or trends.

At the end of the semester, students rated the strategies for their perceived usefulness in learning statics. A scale of one to five was used where five represented “very useful,” three “no opinion,” and one “not useful at all.” The students were also asked three additional questions: (1) “How often did they go to help sessions?” with a scale of five (very often) to one (never); (2) “Compare your overall learning in this class with learning in other classes.” with a scale of five (very good) to one (very poor); and, (3) “In what range does your cumulative GPA lie?” with ranges of GPA ³ 3.5, 3.1 £ GPA < 3.5, 2.7 £ GPA < 3.1, and GPA £ 2.7.

Table 2 shows the average student ratings of the strategies used in statics by GPA groups in the smallest statics section. The highest and the lowest ratings for a strategy are indicated by a “+” and “-,“ respectively. For all strategies but the learning style project, these highest and the lowest ratings were significantly different at an a < 0.05 level with the majority of the differences significant at the a < 0.001 level.

TABLE 2

Average Ratings of Different Groups of Students in a 50 Student Section

Strategies	Low GPA < 2.7 [4]*	Medium GPA (2.7 to 3.1) [14]	High GPA (3.1 to 3.5) [17]	Very High GPA (³ 3.5) [11]
Doing and checking homework	4.75⁺	4.72	4.53^-	4.64
Daily Attention Quizzes	4.75⁺	4.43	3.94	3.64^-
Participation via flashcards	3.50	3.65⁺	3.41	3.37^-
Homework hints on the web	4.25	4.00^-	4.53⁺	4.27
DHQM on the web	4.50	3.93^-	4.59⁺	4.09
PASS on the web	4.50⁺	3.58^-	4.35	4.27
Having 10 quizzes instead of 3 tests	5.0⁺	4.93	4.94	4.19^-
Group discussion before quizzes	4.75	4.93⁺	4.59	4.55^-
Providing quiz solution immediately	4.25	4.57⁺	4.65	4.37^-
Keeping a course portfolio	3.50^-	3.79	4.24⁺	3.73
Keeping homework solution	4.00⁺	3.72	3.52^-	3.64
Team projects	4.25⁺	4.07	3.76	3.45^-
Basketball shooting project	2.34^-	3.31	3.64⁺	3.00
Learning style project	3.67	3.77	3.79	3.73
Creative exercise project	3.34	4.00⁺	3.43	2.73^-
Roof truss design project	4.67⁺	4.54	4.43	4.37^-
How often did you go to help sessions	2.67	2.47	2.95⁺	1.82^-
Your overall learning in this class compared to other classes	4.50	5.0⁺	4.71	4.46^-

*The number in [] is the number of students in the GPA group.

Figure 1 shows rating trends for the first three listed strategies across the GPA groups. Note the clear downward trend in the student rating of the daily attention quiz as student GPA increased.

Table 3 shows the average ratings for strategies used across all three different sections. As seen, some strategies were not used in the Fall 98 section (these were replaced by other strategies).

Table 4 shows student perceptions of their learning in the statics classes as compared to other classes for all three sections of statics (students enrollment of 50, 100, 175). Again, the scale used was 5 (very good), 4 (good), 3 ( about the same), 2 (poor), and 1 (very poor).

TABLE 3

Average Ratings By Student

Strategies	Smaller Section Fall 97 [N = 46]	Medium Section Fall 97 [N = 95]	Larger Section Fall 98 [N = 171]
Doing and checking homework	4.63	4.78	4.81
Daily Attention Quizzes	4.09	4.17	4.15
Class participation using flashcards	3.48	3.82	-
Homework hints on the web	4.28	4.14	4.39
DHQM on the web	4.26	4.25	4.42
PASS on the web	4.11	4.09	4.40
Having 10 quizzes instead of 3 tests	4.91	4.84	4.83
Group discussion before quizzes	4.70	4.73	-
Providing quiz solution immediately	4.52	4.49	4.77
Keeping a course portfolio	3.92	4.19	4.29
Keeping homework solution	3.66	4.06	4.23
Team projects	3.83	3.62	-
Basketball shooting project	3.28	3.20	-
Learning style project	3.76	3.52	-
Creative exercise project	3.43	3.27	-
Roof truss design project	4.48	4.40	-
How often did you go to help sessions	2.51	1.95	3.19
Your overall learning in this class compared to other classes	4.72	4.60	4.55

A “ - “ indicates that this strategy was not used.

TABLE 4

Student Rating of Overall Learning in the Statics Classes

Compared to Learning in Other Classes

Classes		% of Students Giving Rating of
			5	4	3	2	1	5+4
	Smaller		76	20	4	-	-	96
	Medium		64	33	2	1	-	97
	Larger		60	35	4	1	-	95

Discussion

These data are based on student perceptions and do not really address actual student learning or performance. However, many of these strategies have been shown to provide positive benefits for student learning (Johnson, et al., 1998)⁸. In addition, many strategies encourage repeated cognitive processing which increases learning. Student perceptions could be linked to actual performance data via use of a standard test at the beginning and at the end of a course. This type of standardized tests for physics (e.g., the Force Concept Inventory or Mechanics Baseline) tests are available (Mazur,1997)¹⁰. To date, a similar test for statics has not been found. (If such a test does not exist, we plan to develop one.) However, for now our discussions are limited to students’ perceptions and observations.

An analysis of results with respect to overall student GPA provides further insight into use of these strategies. For example, while the daily attention quizzes and team projects were not as highly rated as some activities, they were perceived as more helpful by students with lower GPA (see Table 2 and Figure 1). A team project on a roof truss design also seem to show similar trend. The “+” signs (representing the highest rating across the four GPA groups) in Table 2 are distributed across the low, medium and high GPA groups, thus each group tends to prefer particular activities. Interestingly, there are no “+” signs in the very high GPA student column. It appears that these students are less dependent on new paradigm strategies. In short, this group of students are probably capable of learning irrespective of what is done in the classroom.

The 3.1 to 3.5 GPA group were the most likely to attend help sessions with the lower GPA groups both less likely to attend. This suggests that instructors should target strategies other than help sessions to help students with a low GPA. Another powerful result is the perfect score (5.0) given by the medium GPA group (n = 14) to the overall learning in this course as compared to other classes. This indicates that the strategies are having significant impact on this group of “average” performers.

Table 2 shows the following activities highly rated by all GPA groups: doing and checking homework daily, conducting ten quizzes rather than three tests, group discussion before quizzes, providing quiz solutions immediately after a quiz, and the roof truss design project. Technology-based activities seem to be the next favorite group of activities. The lowest ranking strategy was the Basketball Shooting Project.

Table 3 shows average ratings for each strategy by students in three sections of varying sizes taught by the same instructor. Highly rated strategies in the smaller sections are also highly rated in the two larger sections. In fact, ratings for some strategies are higher in larger sections as compared to the smaller sections. The technology-based activities like DHQM and PASS were rated higher by the fall 1998 class as were the strategies of maintaining course portfolios, keeping homework solutions, and providing quiz solutions immediately after the quiz. The biggest gain was found in the number of students going to help sessions. During fall 1998, help session times were selected after soliciting open time slots from students and the number of help sessions was increased from eight to thirteen sessions per week. While the ratings of overall learning as compared to other classes do drop slightly with increase in section size, all sections show a very high rating.

The Table 4 provides a more detailed view of these data. The higher rating given by the students of the smaller section (50 students) is notable. Seventy-six percent of the students gave a rating of “5”. The larger sections do not show this powerful effect. This is meaningful since the average class in the nation is probably closer to 50 students.

Importantly, the attendance levels in these classes range between 90 to 100 percent, even in the largest section. The average attendance in large classes is typically 55 to 67 percent (Romer, 1993)¹⁷.

Conclusions

Strategies focused on increasing student participation and learning were developed and implemented in three statics sections of varying sizes over the last two years. Overall student perception of these strategies and their impact on learning in three sections of different size is very favorable. In addition, analysis of student ratings grouped by cumulative GPA indicate different strategies are perceived as helpful by different groups of students. However, implementing a combination of strategies seem to help all groups. Many of these strategies work across all class sizes and do not require significant investment in technology or hardware. However, more work needs to be done to determine the effect of these strategies on actual student learning or performance.

A word of caution is appropriate. This paper describes different strategies but it is important to note that strategies by themselves may not improve student learning. How strategies are implemented by the instructor and the instructor’s attitude play a significant role in student learning. An appropriate quote comes from Louis Schmier: “Education without caring, without a soul, without a spirit, without purpose beyond subject matter is as viable as a person with a brain but without heart. Pedagogy, technology, and techniques are no substitute for love and caring.”

References

1. Angelo, T.A. & Cross, P. (1993). Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for College Teachers. Jossey Bass Publisher, San Francisco, CA.

2. Bloom, B.S.(1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, David McKay, New York, NY.

3. Carneson, J., Delpierre, G., and Masters, K. (1997). Designing and Managing Multiple Choice Questions, University of Cape Town, South Africa, http://www.uct.ac.za/projects/cbe/meqman/mcqman01.html.

4. Cross, Patricia (1998). “What Do We Know About Student Learning and How Do We Know It?” in Proceedings of the 1998 AAHE National Conference on Higher Education, Atlanta, GA.

5. Danielson, S.G., & Danielson, E.B. (1994). “Teaching problem solving via non-traditional methods.” In: 1994 Annual Conference Proceedings, American Society for Engineering Education, Vol. II, June 26-29, Edmonton, Canada (p. 1675-1680). New York: American Society for Engineering Education.

6. Freilich, M. B. (1987). A Student Evaluation of Teaching Techniques. In Gupta, M.S.(ed.), Teaching Engineering: A Beginner’s Guide, IEEE Press, New York, NY.

7. Johnson, David, Johnson, Roger, & Smith, Karl (1991). Active Learning: Cooperation in the College Classroom, Interaction Book Company, Edina, MN.

8. Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Smith, K. (1998). “Cooperative Learning returns to college: What evidence is there that it works?” Change, July/August, p. 27 - 35.

9. Mafi, M.(1989). “Involving Students in a Time-Saving Solution to the Homework Problem,” Engineering Education, April, p.444.

10. Mazur, Eric (1997). Peer Instruction. Prentice Hall, NJ.

11. Mehta, S.I. (1998). “Cooperative Learning Strategies for Large Classes,” Proceedings of the ASEE National Conference, Seattle, WA.

12. Mehta, Sudhir & Schlecht, Nem (1998). “Computerized Assessment Technique for Large Classes,” Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 87, 2, p. 167-172.

13. Mehta, S.I. (1997). “Productive, Quick, and Enjoyable Assessment,” Proceedings of the ASEE National Conference, Milwaukee, WI.

14. Mehta, S.I. (1995). “A Method for Instant Assessment and Active Learning,” Journal of Engineering Education, pp. 295-298.

15. Mehta, S.I. (1993). “An Attention Quiz; A Low-Tech, High Yielding Teaching Tip,” Proceedings of the 1993 ASEE Annual Conference, Urbana, IL, pp. 1897-1901.

NSF (1996). Shaping the Future: New Expectations for Undergraduate Education in Science Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology, Report # NSF 96-139. The National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA.

16. Panitz, Beth (1996). “Boosting students’ attention and retention,” ASEE Prism, Vol. 5, 5, p.16

17. Romer, D. (1993). “Do Students Go to Class? Should They?” Journal of Economic Perspectives, V7, Summer, pp. 167 - 174.

18. Simon, Herbert (1998). “What We Know About Learning (Keynote Address),” Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 87, 4, p. 433-436.

19. Smith, Karl and Waller, Alisha (1997). “Afterward: New Paradigms for College Teaching.” In New Paradigms for College Teaching edited by Campbell, Wm. and Smith, Karl. Interaction Book Company, Edina, MN.

20. Yokomoto, C. F. and Ware, R. (1997). “Variation of the Group Quiz that Promote Collaborative Learning,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference, Tempe, AZ.

21. Yokomoto, C.F. and Ware, R. (1991). “The Seven Practices-Persuading Students to do Their Homework,” Proceedings ASEE Annual Conference, New Orleans, LA, pp.1767-1769.

Biographies

SUDHIR MEHTA

Sudhir Mehta is a professor of Mechanical Engineering at North Dakota State University. He was named the 1997 North Dakota Professor of the Year by the Carnegie Foundation. His areas of interest are engineering education research, instrumentation, controls, robotics, design optimization, and machine vision. He has developed 2 CD-ROM’s containing hypermedia based instrumentation and communication resource modules, He has also developed innovative techniques for active learning, collaborative learning, and quick assessment. Dr. Mehta received the Carnot Award for the best teacher of the year, four times, from the students of Pi Tau Sigma Society. His e-mail address is mehta@badlands.nodak.edu.

SCOTT DANIELSON

Scott Danielson is an assistant professor at North Dakota State University. He was the chair of the Engineering Technology Department and directed its Aero Manufacturing Engineering Technology program. He is currently a faculty member in the Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering department. Other responsibilities at NDSU have included teaching courses in the Mechanical Engineering and Applied Mechanics Department and managing the Robert Perkins Engineering Computer Center. Dr. Danielson received the College of Engineering and Architecture’s Teacher of the Year Award for the 1995-1996 year. His research interests include effective teaching and engineering applications of geographic information systems. Before coming to the University, he was a design engineer, maintenance supervisor, and plant engineer. He is a registered professional engineer. His e-mail address is sdaniels@plains.nodak.edu.

Abstract

Results

High

GPA

Student Rating of Overall Learning in the Statics Classes

Compared to Learning in Other Classes

Smaller

Discussion

Conclusions