1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

9. 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

10. Section comparison RULE section performed higher on all tests Exclusion of LEAP students widens the margin RULE section performed higher on all tests Exclusion of LEAP students widens the margin

11. Overall comparison A B Course GPA A B Overall GPA

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. Course Evaluation EasyDifficult Poor Excellent

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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