       
 Contact LTC University of Dayton |
"Making Room for Group Work I: Teaching Engineering in a Modern Classroom Setting"Robert Wilkens and Amy CiricAbstract.This paper describes the results of several teaching experiments in the teaching Studio of The University of Dayton’s Learning-Teaching Center. The Studio is a state-of-the-art classroom with a flexible seating arrangements and movable whiteboards and corkboards for small group discussions. The Studio has a communications system with a TV/VCR system, electronic smartboard, and hook-ups for portable computers. The possibilities of this teaching Studio for facilitating novel group-learning exercises were explored in a special offerings of an experimental methods course for chemical engineering undergraduates. This paper discusses the impact that several group-learning methods can have upon student learning in a unique classroom setting. Introduction.The traditional lecture format of engineering courses has many drawbacks. A 50 to 90 minute lecture period exceeds the typical 20 minute attention span of a college student (Wankat and Oreovicz, 1993). The passive structure does not encourage teamwork or life-long learning skills, and some students leave lecture-oriented courses confident that they can solve the in-class examples and little else. A number of group learning approaches have been suggested to augment lecture courses, including small- and large- group student-led discussions, and in-class assignments. These strategies can improve student ability to handle ambiguity and complexity, recognize assumptions, improve their communication skills, and help students feel connected to a topic (Brookfield and Preskill, 1999). Additionally, shifting material from a lecture to student-led discussion formats increases student confidence that they can learn on their own, a prerequisite for life-long learning. Discussion-format classes have to be carefully structured if they are to cover the same amount of material as a lecture-format course. This paper will describe the use of creative group-learning structures in an experimental methods course. Specifically, these structures were employed during the summer of 2000 offering of the course CME 204, Experimental Methods in Chemical Engineering. According to the University Bulletin, the objective of this course is to be an, “Introduction to experimental methods, instrumentation, digital data acquisition, data analysis, and report writing. Use of digital computer is emphasized.” The course is taught to second-semester sophomores who are majoring in Chemical Engineering. It is their second course in the major. While having a stated objective of introducing the students to the engineering way experimentation and engineering instrumentation, it also serves the objective of maintaining student involvement in the department until they have completed the necessary mathematical background for the more advanced topics. Historically, this course, when taught in a standard classroom with a conventional lecture format, has received poor student reviews. The course theme, how to conduct experiments as a Chemical Engineer, leads to many varied topics, from uncertainty analysis and probability to instrumentation principles of operation to computer programming for data acquisition. Students had difficulty seeing the common theme, and tended to experience the course as a hodge-podge of information with no common thread. The special offering of the course was taught in an ideal classroom for group work: the Studio in the Ryan C. Harris Learning Teaching Center at the University of Dayton. As part of an innovative approach to encourage faculty members to explore new pedagogical styles, the University of Dayton has established the Ryan C. Harris Learning Teaching Center. In the Learning Teaching Center a classroom called the Studio has been erected which incorporates classroom flexibility and the latest technology. University faculty use this top-notch teaching facility for the pedagogical exploration and to test new technology on a small scale before implementing it in larger courses. The Studio, custom-designed to foster classroom discussion and groupwork, was the best place to develop an improved pedagogical style for this course. The Classroom.The classroom is designed to handle up to 24 students. The room and the desks evoke memories of a kindergarten classroom, only with bigger seats. The floor is carpeted. Instead of desks, the students sit at specially designed tables that they can be maneuvered around as necessary. An open closet runs along one wall where coats and excess baggage can be placed. Portable whiteboards and corkboards can be placed along any wall or can be hung in the middle of the room by what can be best described as a tic-tac-toe railing system overhead. In one corner closet is a combination TV / VCR along with a standard overhead projection unit. In the other corner closet is a notebook computer with wireless connection to the internet and a computer data projection unit. This system is coupled with a SMART Board, which is much like a giant touch screen for the computer. Notebook computers are available for the classroom upon request. These also have wireless connections to the internet along with standard network ports. Other unique aspects of this classroom involve the physical setting. The appointments both inside and outside of the Studio are exquisite. Just outside of the room is a coffee bar. In addition, one of the most promising aspects is that the Learning Teaching Center is in the basement of the library. Studio Evaluation Notes about the Studio and its technology were collected from the instructor, the students, and communications with other instructors who were using the classroom. These notes have been summarized into Table 1. Although certain aspects of the Studio could be improved upon, most were considered to be a step in the right direction. Table 1: Summary of comments about the LTC Studio.
Group-Discussion Structures.Brookfield and Preskill (1999) have discussed ways to promote classroom discussion. Five are particularly useful for engineering education:
All techniques were either immediately followed or immediately preceded by an appropriate homework assignment. Also, each technique was followed by a large group discussion (entire class) to evaluate the style’s effectiveness. Small Groups For the small group discussion technique, the students were first asked to read selected sections from the text about a new topic prior to the next meeting. At the next meeting, the students were asked to reflect on aspects of the reading that they understood well and aspects that they found to be confusing. The students were then divided into groups of 3 or 4 and asked to create a group list. Finally, all of the lists were summarized on a board in the front of the room and a large group discussion ensued. What the students found was that, in general, they were all confused about the same things. This was followed by a lecture where additional focus and example problems were applied to the difficult material. All material was still covered for completeness. Knowledge of their limitations helped the students to focus on these parts of the notes. As an added benefit, topics that were not well understood by the minority were often cleared through the initial discussion. As with all techniques, when finished the approach was discussed in a large group to judge the effectiveness. In-class Practice While presenting aspects of computer programming, it was decided that it was best to program as we went. The Studio provided a notebook PC to each student and one for the instructor, which projected onto a SMART Board. The programming had some lecture, a handout, and plenty of in-class practice where the instructor and the teaching assistant went from student to student to help them over the simpler hurdles that so often stop programming in its tracks. This structure was employed over a period of several weeks. Snowball Snowballing is much like the small group discussion as applied to this course. After reading, students progressively get into larger groups until eventually the entire class is involved in the discussion. Lecture still follows the discussion with focus on the areas of concern. What distinguished Snowball from Small Group was the addition of more group layers, much like a growing snowball. Jigsaw A jigsaw is an approach where groups are formed to discuss one topic. Then they form new groups with one topic expert in each (works best with a squared number of students 22 = 4, 32 = 9, 16, 25, 36, etc.). For this implementation, all students were first asked to read the entire chapter (temperature instrumentation). Next, four groups were created and each assigned to establish an area of topical expertise: thermal expansion techniques, thermocouple techniques, electrical resistance techniques, radiation techniques. They met for one period in-class and then had until the next class period to create a set of notes. At the following class, four new groups were formed which included a topical expert from each area. The students then gave lectures and examples to each other using the portable whiteboards. This only took one class period (1.5 hours) to present the information. Despite pleas from the students, no lecture from the instructor accompanied the jigsaw notes. A specialized homework assignment was created to test how deep of an understanding was formed in each area. The homework was assigned to each of the new teams (i.e., not to individuals) to be turned in collectively. Lecture and Other Other teaching styles were used as necessary, but they were not evaluated. The straight (traditional) lecture style was used, primarily as a basis for comparison. All lectures included examples, and students were encouraged to ask questions when they needed clarification. Another teaching format that was used but not evaluated involved meeting in the chemical engineering laboratory and collecting data. This was used at the end of the term to bring all of the aspects of the course together with a case study. Student Evaluation.Formal university evaluations are not required for courses taught in the Studio. However, the instructor created a special evaluation form to help determine the success of the course. Table 2 summarizes the statements and responses. Table 2: Summary of the end-of-term anonymous student evaluations.
The responses to most of the questions reflected well on the course. This is in stark contrast to evaluations received for the previous instruction of this course. The response to question 1 is the same as previous. The students did not like the text. The most pertinent questions to the course modifications are 9 – 12. For these questions, 90% of the student responses are at the highest level and 98% of the responses are favorable. In the evaluation, the students were also asked to rank the techniques used in the classroom. Five points are given for the technique that the student liked best, four points for the second, etc., with zero points given for the least-favorite method. The total points received by all students are summarized in Table 3. Table 3: Rank of techniques used in classroom.
The top-ranked technique was the one applied to computer programming where the lecture was followed with in-class practice such as examples or homework. The second-ranked technique was small group discussion followed by large group discussion and then lecture. The lowest-rated technique was the modified jigsaw with no lecture. The evaluation also contained several open-ended questions. One question asked the students to summarize topics covered in the course about which they felt confident and topics about which they felt confused. The topics about which the most students indicated confusion were contained in Chapters 4, 8, and 14 (straight lecture and jigsaw). The topics about which the most students indicated confidence were computers plus topics contained in Chapters 3, 6, and 7 (three different techniques). Ironically, the students did best on the jigsaw-taught topics as judged by homework and test scores. The students were also asked to list the positive and negative aspects about the homework. Most agreed that while it was difficult, it was quite relevant. During the course, assignments were alternated between being due before the topic was covered in class and afterwards. When asked which was better, 1 preferred before, 8 preferred after, and 5 indicated that they would like to alternate between the two scenarios. Adjusting the timing of notes and homework can lead to an increased student interest. When asked what modified methods they might propose, they responded with the following ideas:
Instructor CommentsDuring the course of the semester, notes were made about the progress of the class in a journal fashion. Notes were made prior to, during, and immediately following each class period. Notes prior to each class included a summary of announcements along with a proposed list of topics and objectives for the day. Occasionally, the objectives were written on a side whiteboard in the classroom for the students to consider for the entire period. As a way to ensure equal participation amongst the students, a list of students to “pick on” was also created prior to the class. The instructor first called upon two of these students to attempt to answer each question, for the entire period, before asking the other students to answer. During the course of the term, all of the students had their opportunity to be “picked on.” Notes made during each class included how the lecture notes could be improved, who was late or missing from class, observations of the students, and summaries of student comments about the course topics and formats (including a summary of large group discussions). Notes generated after the class period included an evaluation of the period, what was covered (or not covered), and ideas for future classes. Table 4 summarizes the notes that are of general interest; course-specific notes were deleted. Table 4: General interest notes (roughly chronological order).
Conclusions.Teaching in the Learning Teaching Center Studio greatly facilitated the pedagogical exploration. Several group discussion structures were successfully explored in this course. The modified jigsaw approach, although not liked by the students, had the best participation and was the most effective of the methods used. Students demonstrated that they could learn on their own but it may take more experiences with this for them to gain confidence. The in-class practice approach was the method most liked by the students and gave them the most confidence about their abilities. Small group discussion was easy to apply to many topics and was well received by the students. Two unexpected results were observed: a journal of the class progress makes for an invaluable record of the term, mixing the timing of notes and homework can improve student interest during lecture. Introduction of the discussion techniques to the course did not affect coverage of required topics. These structures should be implemented and evaluated in a traditional classroom as appropriate. References.Brookfield, S.D. and S. Preskill, Discussion as a Way of Teaching, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 1999. Felder, R.M., “Imposters Everywhere,” Chemical Engineering Education, 22, 168-169, 1988. Wankat P.C. and F.S. Oreovicz, Teaching Engineering, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1993. |