Student Performance Enhancements via an Active, Integrated Engineering Physics Course

Incrementally, over the past five years, an engineering physics (mechanics) course has been completely restructured by combining the previously separate lecture, laboratory, and recitation components into a single, integrated learning environment. Moreover, many active learning components have been incorporated into the class. These include interactive laboratories, peer instruction, and use of electronic clickers. These changes have been made in phases over several years and each change was assessed using the Force Concept Inventory (FCI) assessment test, given on the first and last days of class. Results from the Force Concept Inventory test show that the overall gain in performance has tripled as a result of the combined effects of these changes. Additionally, course grades show that the overall pass rate for the course has increased by over ten percentage points. This paper describes the restructuring of the course to integrate the lecture, lab, and recitation components. It also covers how the traditional laboratories have been replaced with interactive laboratories and includes methodologies and best practices. The paper addresses the peer instruction method (also known as think-pair-share) including formation of concept questions and best practices. Five years worth of preand post-class assessment data are presented and show that significant performance gains were achieved as each of the elements (blended lecture and lab, interactive laboratories, and peer instruction) were incorporated. Lastly, the paper describes the current initiative to remove the remaining lecture component from the course, making the class completely active. This will be accomplished through the creation of videos covering the day’s technical content that students must watch prior to class. 1.0 Introduction The material covered in an engineering physics sequence includes vital foundational concepts used throughout a student’s engineering education. Without a strong physics education, engineering students are often destined to struggle in future technical classes. Perhaps even more importantly, the engineering physics sequence provides an engineering student with numerous “soft” skills. These courses set the tone for future learning; they teach students problem solving skills, critical thinking, experimental inquiry, and the importance of developing a good work ethic. If done properly, these courses can teach students the importance of acquiring a conceptual understanding rather than rote memorization of how to plug into equations. When successful, these courses teach students how to digest a problem, sort out the relevant concepts, make assumptions, and reflect critically on their analyses. Conversely, if done poorly, students begin their engineering education unprepared, either in conceptual/technical knowledge, problem solving skills, or both. Throughout its long history, physics has been taught in nearly the same manner – via lectures, often supplemented by a laboratory experience. Several decades ago physics educators recognized the need for change; students were not learning the concepts and/or were not engaged by the methods used in physics education. Since then much progress has been made in physics education research. Efforts have led to new methods that reduce or remove lecture in favor of active learning methods, focus on learning conceptual knowledge and enhance the P ge 24123.2 experimental/laboratory component. Application of a standardized physics assessment test by numerous physics educators has shown that these methods provide substantial gains over the traditional lecture format. Details of these methods, their assessment, and the evolution of physics education research have been documented in several books on physics education strategies. Despite these advances, many physics instructors continue to use the traditional lecture/lab format or have only incorporated a few select techniques. This paper describes the author’s experience over the past six years as a traditional lecture-based physics course has undergone a phased transformation to a completely active learning experience. These phases included: blending the separate lecture, laboratory and recitation elements into a combined experience; development of interactive laboratories; introduction of electronic response systems (clickers); incorporation of peer instruction (a.k.a. think-pair-share); development of an active learning workbook; and, the removal of all remaining lecture elements in favor of pre-class videos (i.e. a flipped-classroom element). Each year, as new features were phased in, preand post-course assessments were conducted using the Force Concept Inventory (FCI) test. This paper describes the evolution of the class, the methods that were used, and the results of the annual assessment tests. It also presents best practices/advice for each of the methods based on experience gained over the past six years. 2.0 Background At the author’s institution, as recently as 2008, the Engineering Physics I (Mechanics) course was taught in the traditional style, consisting of separate lecture, laboratory, and recitation components. Over the past six years the course has been completely transformed and the evolution in student learning has been assessed at each step along the way. This section describes both the original and new structure of the course. At the author’s institution, a small liberal-‐arts based college with an engineering program, the engineering physics classes are taught by the engineering faculty. Over the past 7 years, the author (a mechanical engineering faculty member) has taught both sections of the engineering physics (mechanics) course each spring, including offerings with the original structure. This arrangement has provided the author with the flexibility to implement and monitor the various curricular changes described in the paper. 2.1 Original Structure Under both the original and new structures, the Engineering Physics I class is a five-‐credit course. Prior to the spring 2009 offering, the class was taught as a three-‐credit lecture (meeting three hours per week), a one-‐credit laboratory (meeting three hours per week), and a one-‐credit recitation (meeting one and a half hours per week). In total, the students were occupied for seven and a half hours per week with “in-‐class” work. In the spring of 2008, which was the last offering using the old structure, there were three sections of the lecture, taught by a faculty member (the author), and five sections of the laboratory, taught by a laboratory instructor. All of the recitation components were also taught by the author. In 2008, the lecture and recitation sections each operated with P ge 24123.3 approximately 27 students (80 total students) while the laboratory sections had approximately 16 students each. 2.2 Problems with the Old Structure Having taught the course in the traditional structure for thee offerings, the author found that for each offering the typical failure rate (where a failure is defined as a grade of D, F, or a withdrawal), was 50% or higher. These poor results led to critical reflections on the course and, through anecdotal investigation, a number of problems were noted. In its original structure it was observed that: the students retained little from the lecture; the lecture and laboratory components were disjointed and did not compliment one another; and, the laboratories themselves, while occupying a significant amount of the students’ time, were not effectively reinforcing the material. During one of the offerings with the old structure, the author instructed one of the laboratory sections which provided an excellent opportunity to investigate the contributions (or lack thereof) the laboratories made to the learning process. Those observations led to several important observations on the laboratory component: • During the lab the students suffered from “cookbook syndrome”. It seemed that they were preoccupied with the rote following of instructions rather than intellectual thought. Students would not pause prior to an experiment to predict what might happen nor would they reflect on their results. It was not uncommon to see students collect nonsensical results, write them down, and move on without sensing that something was wrong. • The setup and tear down of the lab equipment took up a significant amount of time and the students got