Learning Experiences Of Using Teaching And Assessment Tools For Solid Mechanics Course

This paper describes the author’s experiences of using a few teaching and assessment tools for Solid Mechanics course taught at Kettering University. This course is taught at junior level and is offered during all the four terms. Kettering University is a co-op institution in which the students alternate each term between work and school. This creates a time gap between the study and the work terms, posing some challenging issues for many students to retain the pre-requisites knowledge. It is very time consuming to review the pre-requisites knowledge to get the students back on track in either the Solid Mechanics or in the Machine Design courses. This paper describes the teaching and learning experiences of incorporating some of the teaching and assessment tools to improve the overall performance in the Solid Mechanics course. Some of these simple tools include reaching out the students during their work term by sending them the upcoming course review materials, implementing cooperative learning and project based learning through in-class group work and group homework, assignment of mini-projects, etc. It was observed that using some of these tools improved their overall understanding and better performance as measured by their scores on the final examination. The final examination questions have been carefully designed by a group of faculty teaching this course so that each question is tied with the course (or student) learning objectives (CLOs or SLOs) and the program outcomes (POs). Sample assessment charts are presented at the end of the paper and discussed. Introduction and Literature Review There is a lot of literature on educational research and teaching and learning techniques available that deal with improving Mechanics education. ASEE J. of Engineering Education, J. of Science, Math, Engineering and Technology (SMET) Education, J. of STEM, etc., are only a few of many such dedicated journals devoted to engineering education. Numerous textbook authors and the publishers have organized forums on college campuses and at several educational conferences such as ASEE to get a first hand feedback from both the teachers and some times from the learners of Mechanics courses. Therefore, the bibliography presented in this paper is no way complete. Only a few relevant papers are cited in this paper. As mentioned by Krumsieg and Baehr 1 , the teacher and the learner should be aware of the particular methods and skills that are used in each discipline and a course to advance learning and knowledge in those fields. P ge 12009.2 Bowe 2 et al discussed the results of multimedia tools using power point slides of finite element-based stress results to emphasize aspects of stress analysis which their students have traditionally found difficult to grasp. Their assessment showed that overall the students actually disliked the use of these tools for very concrete reasons and improvement in overall learning and comprehension was statistically insignificant. Based on these results, the authors modified their teaching methods to enhance the classroom environment. Nathan 3 developed a set of instructions after working for many years on transitioning from chalkboard to integrating several multi-media aids for classroom use. As many instructors would do, he began the transition from chalkboard to overlaid transparencies, which were later transferred to meaningfully animate electronic slides. These slides were then combined with fill-in worksheets for classroom use, along with the addition of streaming videos for asynchronous instructions. Qualitative feedback indicated a positive response from students. In order to encourage and to promote student learning in-class assessment is a useful tool that actively involves students, while providing valuable feedback to the instructor. Immediate feedback can be even more beneficial, because the instructor can modify the presentation “on the fly” depending on the students’ levels of understanding. One currently available tool, the GTCO CalCompTM “Personal Response System” (PRS) 4 has been used and by Moe while teaching the Fundamentals of Mechanics course. The goal of the analysis was to use emerging technology to enhance the learning environment in engineering courses by increasing instructor-student interaction through assessment and real-time feedback. Elahinia and Ciocanel 5 presented a redevelopment method and process of the laboratory experiments for the Mechanics and Vibration Laboratory in which the objective was to transform the learning process from a subject-based learning to a problem-solving learning. Particular objective was to provide the students with more hands-on experience and to challenge them by requesting the procedure for each laboratory experiment to be designed and carried out by each group of students. Their method was in line with the program objectives of their department. Integration of Concept Inventories is another method used by many researchers in gauging student knowledge. The commonly employed metrics (such as homework, quizzes and exams) serve as indicators of student performance for instructors. However, these instruments may not truly help in assessing student knowledge gains. Steif and Dantzler 6 conducted a study to design multiple choice questions in Statics course that helped them perform psychometric analysis of the test results of over 245 students at several different universities. They concluded that the inventory offers reliable and valid measures of conceptual knowledge in Statics course. On the basis of their test, one can infer which concepts students in general tend to have the most difficulties with, as well as the misconceptions that appear to be most prevalent. P ge 12009.3 The present author gave Steif’s test as the Statics competency test. The results collected over three terms agree with Steif’s findings about the students’ understanding of the concepts and the misconceptions. Concept inventories have recently emerged as tools for assessing students’ understanding of the basic concepts upon which technical education is based are being developed and validated for a variety of engineering subjects. Steif and Naples 7 developed Problem Solving Courseware Modules for Mechanics of Materials course. These modules are based on use of a computer that takes a complementary approach (compared to the textbooks) of enabling students to work with a limited set of configurations in great depth. Their conclusion based on a few years of evaluation was very positive in the sense that the student users were very enthusiastic about using the courseware as they viewed it beneficial to their learning. As mentioned before, there are other numerous papers in the teaching methods, evaluation and assessment of Mechanics courses and how they improve the mechanics education. Therefore, this literature survey is by far not a comprehensive one. Solid Mechanics Course The Solid Mechanics faculty team at Kettering University met several times and agreed on a common syllabus that consisted of “Required Topics” to be covered and tested on common final examination, and topics that are “Optional” for coverage by the individual instructor and tested on home work, quizzes and midterm examinations. When once a common syllabus has been agreed up on, identifying the course learning objectives (CLOs or SLOs) has become an easier task. The goal was to have these CLOs simple and less in number. The following CLOs have been identified for this course along with the Mechanical Engineering Program Outcomes (ME POs) and weightage. Notice that the total weightage of the ME POs under each CLO adds up to 100%. Finally, certain POs are common for each CLO, thus satisfying those outcomes to a great extent. Course Learning Objectives: Objective 1: Apply the principles of Statics to determine the forces and moments on load carrying members. [ME POs a (35%), c (30%), e (30%), and i (5%)] Objective 2: Analyze the stresses in load carrying members due to axial forces, bearing forces, torsional moments, bending moments and shear forces. [ME POs a (35%), c (30%), e (30%), and k (5%)] Objective 3: Analyze the combined stresses in load carrying members due to axial forces, torsional moments, and bending moments acting together. [ME POs a (35%), c (25%), e (30%), and k (10%)] Objective 4: Determine the deflection of load carrying, members due to axial loads, torsional moments and bending moments. [ME POs a (35%), c (30%), e (30%), and k (5%)] P ge 12009.4 Objective 5: Objective 5: Apply the principles learned from the objectives 1 through 4 to perform basic analysis and sizing of different structural members. [ME POs a (25%), c (25%), d (10%), e (25%), g (5%), i (5%), and k (5%)] Evaluation and Assessment Tools Used Many in-class and outside of the class activities have been attempted in order to maintain a contact with the students and in turn the students with the solid mechanics subject matter. Conventionally, students keep in touch with the instructor outside of the classroom in the form of office hours or tutor labs, and with the subject matter (either individually or with a group) in the form of reading assignments, homework, and preparation for the examinations. For many students, this set up is often not enough to prepare them well in order to achieve a satisfactory overall performance in a particular class. In some cases this set up can even lead to frustration among the young students who may not be able to ‘catch up’ with the pace of class material coverage. In that case, a situation can arise in which such students ‘give up’ or just try to barely pass a course. All this may be attributed to bad study habits; however, many students have tight term schedules and any outside classroom activity might help them in understanding material in a different way as kinesthetic learners. Some of the following pre-class, in-class and outside the class activities can be used as assessment tools