Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T17:55:16.706Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Investigating How to Support Improvements in Student Learning Outcomes in a Fundamental Materials Engineering Course

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 July 2011

Kathleen L. Kitto
Kathleen L. Kitto*
Affiliation:
Western Washington University, College of Sciences and Technology, Engineering Technology and AMSEC, 516 High Street, Bellingham, WA 98225, U.S.A.
Get access

Abstract

For many engineers and technologists, their only exposure to materials engineering principles occurs within a single fundamentals course. Within that course, the students must conceptualize a wide variety of interdisciplinary topics drawn from chemistry, physics, engineering, and mathematics. Often, the students consider this fundamentals course challenging because it is likely that this is the first time that they are to develop understanding in such an interdisciplinary environment. Research studies in engineering education, which are based in social and cognitive constructivism, indicate that students build scaffolds from existing cognitive structures to new information when the students are able to make connections to their existing knowledge and experiences. It is also known that prior learning heavily influences this learning and that motivation plays a key role in the time that students devote to acquiring new knowledge. Research has also shown cooperative learning, understanding of individual student learning styles, and inductive teaching practices are important components that lead to improved Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs). The only way to truly understand effective practice is to implement constructively aligned strategies, problems, and concept learning opportunities, and then measure the SLOs. Additionally, an in-depth study of prior knowledge, conceptual understanding, and experiences is absolutely essential as key research questions are probed.

This paper describes research work underway at Western Washington University to understand how to improve SLOs in a fundamental materials engineering course by investigating students’ prior knowledge and conceptual understanding, measuring individual learning styles, measuring the effectiveness of different constructively aligned course modules based upon ‘WHERETO” principles with collaborative problem sets or design problems, investigating the effect of pre-exam quizzing, measuring term-long conceptual gains, and developing Information Communication Technology (ICT) enabled applications to support and enhance student learning. Future investigations will probe how more personalizable instruction that allows for student differences might be accomplished with ICT applications, especially for large lecture classes.

Keywords

educationcrystallographic structurebonding
Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 1364: Symposium SS – Forum on Materials Education and Evaluation—K-12, Undergraduate, Graduate and Informal , 2011 , mrss11-1364-ss04-10
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Wiggins, G. and McTighe, J., Understanding by Design, second edition, Pearson, 2006.Google Scholar
2. Prince, M. and Felder, R., “Inductive Teaching and Learning Methods: Definitions, Comparisons, and Research Bases”, Journal of Engineering Education, pp. 1–16, April 2006.Google Scholar
3. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., Smith, K., Active Learning: Cooperation in the College Classroom, second edition, Interaction Book Co., Edina, MN, 1999.Google Scholar
4. Hake, R. R., "Interactive-Engagement vs. Traditional Methods: A Six- Thousand-Student Survey of Mechanics Test Data for Introductory Physics Courses", American Journal of Physics, 66(1), pp. 64–74, 1998.Google Scholar
5. Felder, R. and Brent, R., “Understanding Student Differences”, Journal of Engineering Education”, 94(1), pp. 57–72, 2005.Google Scholar
6. Karpicke, J. D. and Blunt, J. R., “Retrieval Practice Produces More Learning than Elaborative Studying with Concept Mapping”, Sciencexpress, 10 1126/science.1199327, pp. 1–10, (1/20/2011).Google Scholar
7. Karpicke, J. D. and Roediger, H. L. III, “The Critical Importance of Retrieval for Learning’, SCIENCE, (319), pp. 966–968, (2/15/2008).Google Scholar
8. Karpicke, J. D. and Roediger, H. L. III, “Is Expanding Retrieval a Superior Method for Learning Text Materials”, The Psychonomic Society, 38(1), pp. 116 – 124, 2010.Google Scholar
9. Mills, J., Ayre, M., Hands, D., and Carden, P., Learning About Learning Styles, Can It Improve Engineering Education“, MountainRise, 2(1), 2005.Google Scholar
10. Felder, R. and Spurlin, J., “Applications, Reliability and Validity of the Index of Learning Styles”, Journal Engineering Education, 21(1), pp. 103–111, 2005.Google Scholar
11. Purzer, S., Krause, S., and Kelly, J., “What Lies Beneath the Materials Science and Engineering Misconceptions of Undergraduate Engineering StudentsAC 2009-759ASEE Annual Conference2009.Google Scholar
12. Krause, S., Kelly, J., Baker, D., and Kurpius-Robinson, S., “Effect of Pedagogy on Conceptual Change in Repairing Misconceptions of Differing Origins in an Introductory Materials CourseAC 2010-1157ASEE Annual Conference2010.Google Scholar
13. Heckler, A. and Rosenblatt, R., “Student Understanding of Atomic Bonds and Their Relation to Mechanical Properties of Metals in an Introductory Materials Science Engineering CourseAC 2010-1263ASEE Annual Conference2010.Google Scholar
14. Kelly, J., Heinert, K., Triplett, J., Baker, D., and Krause, S., “Uncovering and Repairing Atomic Bonding Misconceptions with Multimodal Assessment of Student Understanding in an Introductory Materials CourseAC 2010-1156ASEE Annual Conference2010.Google Scholar