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 |
|