Is Unaided Active Learning an Effective Teaching Method for Those with Learning Disabilities?

The work presented here aims to address a critical knowledge gap in the engineering education literature through a preliminary study meant to determine if active learning is more effective when students with learning disabilities are first front-loaded with information. These preliminary findings aimed at not only determining if the work should be continued in the future, but also at evaluating if frontloading resulted in: (1) increased student engagement and (2) increased learning effectiveness. Preliminary findings conclude that students with documented, and undocumented, learning disabilities did have an increased understanding of the course content as a result of combining frontloading and active learning. Introduction The benefits of active learning, one of the latest trends and research foci in engineering education, to the average student are well-understood, supported by research, and endorsed by numerous agencies [1]. However, active learning can be a challenge for students with learning disabilities (dyslexia, dyscalculia, dysgraphia, visual and auditory processing deficits, ADHD, nonverbal learning disabilities, and many others), and there is little supporting evidence that it is inclusive to these individuals [2]. Learning disabilities affect a person’s executive functioning skills and their ability to receive, store, and process information, as well as retrieving and communicating information [3]. A common characteristic found in students with learning disabilities is that they require extra time to assimilate information from a lecture. Consequently, an active learning activity can present additional challenges when it requires immediate recall of new information. As the demand for engineers in the U.S. workforce consistently outpaces the number of engineering graduates across the nation, there has been concerted effort to attract more students to the fields of engineering. As the search for engineering students expands, the number of students with learning disabilities in engineering programs, documented and undocumented, increases [3]. Yet, within these programs students with learning disabilities are often a forgotten and underserved group, even though they are the third largest minority behind those of Latino origin and African Americans [4]. Therefore, there is an immediate need to understand the potentially damaging effects active learning can have on this group of students who already face challenges in the classroom [5, 6] and are underrepresented in STEM education. Strong evidence exists in post-secondary education research that active learning is a beneficial teaching method for the average student. Strong evidence exists in primary and secondary education research that frontloading students with learning disabilities aids in the learning process [7, 8, 9]. While literature of frontloading in post-secondary education is deficient, it is hypothesized that by combining these methods, frontloading and active learning, the resulting hybrid will become a more beneficial teaching method for students with learning disabilities. A preliminary study was conducted in Fundamentals of Engineering (MCET 101) to determine if active learning is more effective when students with learning disabilities are first front-loaded with information. Fundamentals of Engineering is a core course in the Manufacturing and Mechanical Engineering Technology program at the Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT). To increase student engagement and retention, active learning has been a key component of the Fundamentals of Engineering course, a course typically taken by first semester freshman. Since the course is very much hands-on, and the first year can be difficult for students, it was selected to be restructured to include frontloading. What is Frontloading? Frontloading, also known as pre-teaching, is a Universal Design for Learning (UDL) strategy. Frontloading is intended to move away from lecture styled teaching and incorporate other, more authentic and engaging strategies to introduce and scaffold the material for students [10, 6, 9]. During this process, students are intentionally exposed to vocabulary, concepts, and skills that they will learn later in the lesson. Previous work has shown frontloading assignments to be critical for students with certain learning disabilities because it allows them to be exposed to the context of the lesson ahead of time, and therefore building student motivation and confidence during the later lesson [11]. In addition to using frontloading activities as a framework to support and organize student use of new concepts and strategies, frontloading can also be used to assess student conceptual, procedural, or general knowledge that may be necessary for success on subsequent tasks [12]. Research has found that student comprehension is higher when an instructor consistently utilizes a minimum of two front-loading strategies for each lesson: (1) one to connect to prior knowledge and form predictions; (2) the other to pre-teach the essential vocabulary for the lesson [11]. When used properly, frontloading material helps to build student motivation and interest in a new topic, activates or builds necessary knowledge for dealing with said new topic, and serves as a template to assist students through learning of the new topic [12]. When working with students with learning disabilities, research recommends accommodations such as, using multiple senses, participating in hands-on and lab experiences, and using more demonstrations by the instructor [5]. All of which fit perfectly with frontloading activities. Numerous examples of how to frontload information exist in primary and secondary education research and will be adapted in this post-secondary study. Some examples of frontloading techniques are: vocabulary study charts, anticipation guides, concept organizers, KWL charts, group discussions, brainstorming, aligning themes, opinionaire, surveys, and real-life examples [11, 10, 12]. How is the Course Front-loaded? Students with and without learning disabilities learn in many different ways (visual, hands-on, verbal, interpersonal, intrapersonal, etc.). When conducting research on frontloading, it is important to confirm students are being taught in a way that matches their specific learner profile. Therefore, to ensure students’ learner profiles were being met, students first completed a learningstyle questionnaire. This information was used to develop frontloading materials and implementation strategies that best fit the students and their needs. Research has shown the multi-model frontloading to be most beneficial for all students, which provides opportunities throughout the lesson to accommodate all types of learners, [9]. With this in mind, frontloading materials were developed, adapted, and refined by the Fundamentals of Engineering instructional team together with the Disability Services Office and a special education expert. At the start of the Fundamentals of Engineering course, the concept of frontloading and the basics of this study were explained to all enrolled students. In addition, students were made aware of the frontloading experiences they participated in throughout the semester. General front-loading techniques were used throughout the course, such as incorporating three of the five senses in every lesson students hear, see visually what is being said, and work/feel with what is being said; using large print on PowerPoint, with few words per slide and many visuals; having opportunities for students to work with peers in groups; brainstorming; KWL charts; and hands-on activities. Multiple frontloading techniques were used so that if students were bored in one context, they would be motivated in another. Detailed examples of some of the frontloading techniques used in the course are discussed next. One of the most fundamental concepts taught in Fundamentals of Engineering is the engineering design process. The instructors agreed that the pumpkin chunkin’ competition would be a great way to determine if students understood and could follow the engineering design process. It was also agreed that frontloading this concept would be critical in the students’ success. Therefore the concepts associated with the engineering design process were frontloaded by scaffolding the material through the following steps: Class discussion on what goes into a design (drew from previous experiences); Lecture using visuals and real-world examples; Class activity on what denotes a “good” or “bad” engineering design; Class activity on how to complete a decision matrix, with corresponding HW; Class hands-on activity with the “Cards to the Sky” competition, reinforcing the engineering design process and understanding customer design specifications; and Marshmallow launcher build and competition. The concepts associated with the engineering design process were intentionally frontloaded to better prepare students for the marshmallow launching project and the pumpkin chunkin’ competition. Both projects, marshmallow and pumpkin launchers, were a form of frontloading in terms of doing a prototype model and then going to full-scale. The concept of teamwork was frontloaded by having students experience the design process with the marshmallow launcher (first project) in a small team of three before receiving a formal lecture on teamwork. After a formal lecture and activity, the students were put into a much larger team of six for the pumpkin chunkin’ project. Students had to essentially repeat the marshmallow project, except in a larger team with a full-scale launcher that was capable of firing a five pound pumpkin 100 yards. The concept of technical writing was frontloaded in Fundamentals of Engineering by scaffolding the content, as described below. Project 1 required a one-page summary per team of three; Students received a lecture on technical writing; Project 2 required a full tech