A Study Of Challenge Based Learning Techniques In An Introduction To Engineering Course

The purpose of this study was to determine if there existed a difference in student learning by using challenge-based learning methods over traditional lecture methods in a setting beyond the biomedical engineering based studies that have already been completed. This study was conducted in the first half of ES140 – Introduction to Engineering, which is a required class for all entering freshmen with an enrollment of approximately 310 students. This study continues to apply concepts and materials compiled by the NSF-funded VaNTH-ERC applied to a general engineering course. There were eleven sections of this course taught in the Fall 2006 semester. About half of the teaching faculty taught using traditional methods employed for the past three years as a control group and the other half of the teaching faculty used methods provided by the VaNTH-ERC as an experimental group. Our first goal was to show that students learn more and can adapt their knowledge to various situations better using challenge-based learning methods than traditional lecture-based methods. Our second goal was to demonstrate that students taught in the challenge-based style were better able to articulate their understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the various computing modalities and when to apply these modalities to various analysis problems. All eleven sections of this course were required to teach the topics of descriptive statistics, graphing and analysis, and matrix operations using each of the three techniques: paper and pencil, Excel, and Matlab. The control sections of this study moved linearly through these topics with teachers using their traditional teaching methods. The experimental sections of the study began the course with a grand challenge focusing them on determining the strengths and weaknesses of the different tools and computer software engineers might use. Instructors then introduced three challenges that helped students learn the content goals listed above for the course in addition to focusing continually on the strengths and weaknesses of the tools and computer software packages. Three types of data were used in this study: survey responses, answers to test questions, and reflective responses. The surveys were required of students in all eleven sections of this course. These surveys were completed on-line and submitted to a database. The reflection activity consisted of short, open-ended questions asking students why they chose to use either paper and pencil, Excel, or Matlab to solve each of the mid-term exam questions. Blinded mid-term exams were scored by a grading rubric and compared statistically. The construction of the rubric used for comparing the test results and the reflection assignment focused on how students set up problems and adhered to the problem solving process presented in the class. Further, the decision on which computing modality chosen was examined by asking students to justify their P ge 12125.2 choices. The rationalization of this choice exposed the students' understanding of attributes of each computing tool and how those attributes related to the problem being solved. Introduction and Problem Statement. The purpose of this study was to determine if there was a difference in student learning by using challenge-based learning methods over traditional lecture methods in a setting beyond the biomedical engineering based studies that have already been completed. This study was performed in the first half of ES140 – Introduction to Engineering, which is a required class for all entering freshmen at Vanderbilt University with an enrollment of approximately 310 students. This study was a continuation of the application of concepts and materials compiled by the NSFfunded VaNTH-ERC as applied to a general engineering course. The Vanderbilt-Northwestern-Harvard-MIT Engineering Research Center for Bioengineering Educational Technologies (VaNTH ERC) is funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF EEC 9876363) as one of the several engineering research centers. Much of the work done in VaNTH has been based upon the text, How People Learn (HPL) 1 . HPL learning theory incorporates four “centerednesses” that work synergistically to optimize learning. When these four are in place, studies show that students increase both their content knowledge and their ability to apply that knowledge in new situations – i.e., their adaptive expertise 2-6 . First, the learning environment must be knowledge-centered -appropriate information should be presented in an appropriately sequenced and organized way. Second, the environment must be student-centered -lessons should seek out students' prior conceptions and misconceptions, help students make connections with prior knowledge, and be relevant to students' own lives. Third, the learning environment must be assessment-centered -it should include opportunities for formative feedback for both students and instructors: students benefit from opportunities to check their own understanding and instructors from opportunities to assess the effectiveness of their teaching. Finally, a learning environment must be community-centered -students should be provided opportunities to learn collaboratively. According to HPL theory, students learn best when (1) presented with organized information that (2) relates in some way to their own experiences, and they are given the opportunity to (3) test themselves on their own understanding and to (4) work to develop their understanding with other students. The Legacy Cycle incorporates these four influences on learning by providing a rich, contextually based problem, relevant in some way to students’ lives, and allowing students to engage deeply with that problem in ways that include opportunities for collaboration with other students and for self-assessment. The design utilized in the curriculum modules that incorporates HPL theory 7 makes use of a strong contextually based “Challenge” followed by a sequence of instruction where students would attempt to “Generate Ideas” (first thoughts on the challenge), and view “Multiple Perspectives” of others commenting on the challenge and possible ways to address it. Students then participate in extended “Research and Revise” activities where data and information would be gathered to help the student address the challenge, followed by “Test your Mettle” a formative self-assessment and “Going Public” where students solutions would be made public to peers and P ge 12125.3 others. While having been implemented in a limited, but growing, number of K-12 studies' 2-3 results were positive for students working with this design, referred to as the “Legacy Cycle”, by the developers. The VaNTH Engineering Research Center (ERC) has done numerous studies over the last seven years proving the efficacy of the challenge-based teaching method at both the high school and college levels. The success of these studies includes students mastering the basic course content better in challenge-based classrooms than in traditional teaching methods classrooms. Students have also been shown to be able to transfer their new knowledge to other relevant situations more readily in challenge-based learning. Success at the high school level (only a few months removed in age from these college freshmen) has been shown by Klein and Sherwood 3 . Success has also been demonstrated at the collegiate level in numerous publications 4-6 . Our first goal was to show that students learned more and adapted their knowledge to various situations better using challenge-based learning methods than traditional lecture-based methods in an introductory multi-disciplinary engineering context. Our second goal was to demonstrate that students taught in the challenge-based style were better able to articulate their understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the various computing modalities and when to apply these modalities to various analysis problems. Introduction to Engineering is currently taught in eleven sections to incoming first-year students at Vanderbilt University. The introductory course in engineering was remodeled several years ago to satisfy new course goals of fostering early and informed student decisions regarding their declared majors, bringing real world engineering problems into the classroom, and anchoring the curriculum in the context of engineering problem solving. Towards achieving these goals, learning objectives were defined and a model for implementation designed. The learning objectives are (1) to educate the students to apply the problem solving processes essential in solving both design and analytical problems, (2) to enable the students to solve these problems using engineering computing tools while continuing to use the process and (3) to allow them to make educated choices on the use of appropriate tools for the appropriate problems. A modular course implementation system was designed to accomplish both the global as well as specific goals for the students. The semester begins with a general module where basic computing and problem solving skills are developed and the problem solving process emphasized. This module encompasses the first half of the semester and is the driving force of the semester. The general module is taught in the context of data management/analysis using different software packages. Based on these skills, discipline-specific modules were created for each engineering major offered at Vanderbilt. The student proficiencies at the end of module 1 form the foundation in the development of the subsequent modules and are based on the problem-solving methodology in a discipline-specific environment. Thus, the second half of the semester consists of two self-selected four-week, discipline-specific modules focused on a current event or area of research. Each discipline-specific module is designed in the context of problem based learning with a fundamental set of criteria and deliverables, which inc