Using Hands-On Activities to Engage Students in Engineering ...

Using Hands-On Activities to Engage Students in Engineering Mechanics T Lucke Senior Lecturer in Engineering University of the Sunshine Coast Maroochydore, Australia [email protected] Conference Topic: curriculum development Keywords: student engagement; group collaboration; teamwork 1

INTRODUCTION

Much of the pivotal engineering education research in the last two decades promotes studentcentred learning and active learning principles. Active learning principles recognise that when students are actively engaged with their learning, they are much more likely to understand the concepts. The degree to which a student is engaged with their academic work or experience is one of the crucial factors in determining the student’s educational development. The more involved and engaged the student is with the program, the greater his or her level of knowledge acquisition and general cognitive development [1]. Bonwell and Eison [2] explain that when students are actively involved, they engage in higher-order thinking tasks such as analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. Another important finding that is emerging from current engineering education literature is the value of successful group collaboration project work for students’ personal and academic development. Group collaboration not only encourages the deep learning approaches needed to fully understand the material, but also acquaints students with other class members and helps build a sense of community with them. Such activities tend to maximise all the group members’ learning outcomes and have been shown to promote higher individual achievement than competitive or individualistic approaches [1]. Ditcher [3] affirms that employers’ expectations have also changed and they now demand graduates that can work cooperatively with others and have good communication and management skills. Teaching activities therefore need to be designed to promote more student engagement and engineering programs need to incorporate more opportunities for students to experience teamwork [4]. Engineering Mechanics (incorporating areas such as statics, strength of materials, mechanics of solids and so on) is a core area of curriculum for both civil and mechanical engineering students. It is traditionally regarded by many students as conceptually difficult and theoretical. Although active learning techniques have been acknowledged as effective means of improving student engagement in their learning, pressures of time and economy have led to many hands-on activities being reduced within engineering programs, or replaced with on-line alternatives [5]. This has been particularly so in courses such as structural mechanics, where many programs have reduced traditional laboratory sessions to reduce student contact hours and teaching costs. Virtual laboratory alternatives, either through remote access laboratories made available through the internet, or via computer simulations, are becoming increasingly popular in structural mechanics [6]. They have particular application in distance education

programs, and have also been developed to incorporate group work. Research has shown that they can be equally as effective as hands-on activities when properly implemented [7]. It should also be borne in mind that laboratory practicals that are done for the sake of it, without careful establishment of learning objectives and integration with other aspects of course instruction, may not be particularly useful for student learning. However, where personal interaction between students is possible in traditional face-to-face learning environments, the use of small group, hands-on practical/project-based activities, has been repeatedly shown to provide positive student learning outcomes [8]. This paper describes an initiative that was undertaken to promote student engagement and improve learning outcomes in two new core undergraduate engineering mechanics courses, namely Engineering Statics and Mechanics of Materials. A set of low cost, hands-on, interactive models were developed for students to use in small groups that demonstrated the underlying theory and helped them to better understand the basic engineering principles. 2

CORE ENGINEERING MECHANICS COURSES

Engineering Statics and Mechanics of Materials are foundation engineering courses that are traditionally regarded by many students as conceptually difficult and overly theoretical. Engineering students often experience substantial difficulties with foundation mechanics courses and it is widely noted in the literature that pass rates in typical foundation mechanics courses tend to be unacceptably low [9; 10]. The well documented difficulties that students have with foundation mechanics courses such as Engineering Statics and Mechanics of Materials may often influence students' decisions to study engineering at university. It has also been shown that poor performance in these early engineering courses causes many students to lose confidence in their abilities and to consequently drop out of engineering programs [11; 12]. Poor performance in Engineering Statics and Mechanics of Materials can also pre-empt students to accept mediocrity in their learning and de-motivate them to strive for their best. Therefore, the "Ps get degrees" attitude is often rife among engineering students [9]. Poor performance in foundation mechanics courses can often cause students to struggle with simple concepts throughout the rest of their degrees and into their professional lives. The sheer volume of literature demonstrating the difficulties that students have with Engineering Statics and Mechanics of Materials was a serious concern when developing the Engineering Program at University of the Sunshine Coast (USC), which is currently in its third year. The typically high failure rates of around 35% in these introductory engineering subjects [13; 14] were considered unacceptable and it was decided a different approach to teaching these subjects was clearly required. Contemporary literature clearly demonstrates that well-designed student projects encourage active inquiry and higher-level thinking. Students become more engaged in learning when they have a chance to explore the complexities and challenges of solving real-life engineering problems [15]. A literature review of contemporary engineering education was undertaken to identify successful teaching approaches that have been used to improving student learning outcomes in foundation engineering courses. The review findings suggested that a more effective teaching strategy would be to move away from the typically over-complicated text book approach to introducing relevant theory, and to simplify the concepts by using real-world examples that students can relate to. The use of simple, hands-on interactive models and activities to demonstrate real-world concepts in small student groups also increases student engagement and promotes deeper understanding and a real enthusiasm for learning [1; 2; 4; 8; 12; 16; 17]. The following section gives some background on the Engineering Statics and Mechanics of Materials courses and describes some of the interactive hands-on models that were developed.

2.1 Engineering Statics Engineering Statics is a first year undergraduate course that is taken by civil (and mechanical from 2012) USC engineering students. The course ran for the first time in 2011. The course incorporates typical statics topics such as concurrent and non-concurrent force systems, equilibrium of forces, centre of gravity, friction and hydrostatics forces. Students attend a two hour practical/project session every week where the theory they have learned that week is put into practice. The first cohort in Engineering Statics in 2011 consisted of 68 civil engineering students. The class is generally separated into four groups of approximately 15-20 students for each of the tutorial and practical classes. The learning that takes place in the lecture and tutorial classes is reinforced by a number of different practical projects using the new hand-on demonstration models including: Force Resultants, Summing Moments, Method of Sections, Centroids and Friction. 2.2 Mechanics of Materials Mechanics of Materials is a second year undergraduate course that is taken by civil (and mechanical from 2012) USC engineering students. The course also ran for the first time in 2011. The course incorporates topics such as stress and strain, torsion, beam deflection and column buckling. The first cohort in Mechanics of Materials in 2011 consisted of 20 civil engineering students. Students attend a two hour practical/project session every fortnight where the theory they have learned in the preceding weeks is put into practice. The second cohort in 2012 consisted of 33 civil and mechanical engineering students. The class is generally separated into two groups of approximately 20 students for each of the tutorial and practical classes. The learning that takes place in the lecture and tutorial classes is reinforced by a number of different practical projects using the new hand-on demonstration models including the beam deflection and column buckling practicals. 3

HANDS-ON ACTIVITIES TO PROMOTE STUDENT ENGAGEMENT

3.1 Force Resultants - Statics The first practical that the students undertake in Engineering Statics is the Force Resultants practical. The aim of this practical was to investigate and prove the theory that the resultant of a number of concurrent forces acting simultaneously at a single point can be determined by simple addition of the forces graphically, either tip to tail or by breaking the forces down into their x and y components and adding these separately. Students used a simple three force system consisting of a hanging weight, a pair of force transducers and a protractor to demonstrate the theory of concurrent forces and equilibrium. Students used two different methods (tip-to-tail and component addition) to prove that the theory of equilibrium was valid. The assessment for all practicals involved writing a short practical report that included their calculations, observations and discussions. 3.2 Summing Moments - Statics The aim of this practical was to investigate and verify the theory that the support reactions of loaded beams can be found by summing the moments about each of the supports separately. Students were firstly given a worksheet showing 10 different beam loading cases. They were then required to use the theory of summing moments to calculate the support reactions in each of the 10 cases. Once the students had used the theory to calculate the reactions at the supports, they were then given a loading set consisting of a pair of small kitchen scales, a simple beam and a quantity of M24 steel nuts to use as weights. The students then replicated each of the 10 loading cases using the loading set and recorded the actual support reactions on the scales (Figure 1a).

Fig. 1. Force Resultants Practical 3.3 Centroids - Statics The aim of this practical was to verify the theory that the Centroid of an object constructed from a combination of simple shapes can be found by summing the 1st Moment of Area of the shapes and dividing this sum by the sum of the areas of the individual shapes. Students were firstly given a worksheet showing three different combined shapes and they were required calculate the position of the Centroids for the shapes using the theory they had learned in the lecture. Once the students had used the theory to calculate the position of the Centroid for each of the three combined shapes, they were then required to draw and fabricate the shapes using cardboard. The students then used the simple pin and plum bob method to locate the actual position of the Centroids (Figure 1c). 3.4 Dry Friction - Statics The aim of this practical was to investigate and verify the theory of dry friction. Students first calculated the theoretical force required to move a block of wood along a track made from three different materials at different angles of inclination. They then tested the theory by

attaching a string to the block and hanging weight off it to produce enough a lateral force to move the block (Figure 1d). The two results were then compared. 3.5 Beam Deflection – Mechanics of Materials The aim of this practical was to investigate and verify the beam deflection theory when subjected to lateral loadings. Deflection models were constructed that consisted of five different aluminium beam sections of the same length (1m) that are placed onto support stands at each end, one at a time. A plunger type dial gauge is placed underneath the beams and zeroed when no load is applied. Students first used Vernier callipers to measure the dimensions of the five beams in order to calculate the second moment of areas for each shape. They then calculated the theoretical deflection of the five beams when various lateral loads were applied. Once the students had used the theory to calculate the theoretical deflection they then tested the theory by applying various incremental point and uniform loads that align with the theory they have learned in the lectures and tutorials [18], using a plunger type dial gauge located underneath the beam (Figure 1e). The deflection readings were then compared to those obtained using the theory and the effects that varying geometrical properties have on beam deflection behaviour were discussed in their reports. The beam deflection practical was observed to generate a high level of student engagement and students appeared to truly enjoy undertaking the practical. 3.6 Column Buckling – Mechanics of Materials This practical was developed to investigate the behaviour of slender members under axial compression. The models were used to test the buckling behaviour of 2.4mm diameter extruded wire when it is axially loaded from above. Three different wire materials were tested, namely stainless steel, mild steel and aluminium. The models allow for different endfixing conditions to be replicated in order to observe the effect this has on the buckling behaviour of the different materials. The lengths of wire are placed in the model and loads are applied to the wire by stacking weights on top of the wire holder. Students first used Vernier callipers to measure the diameter of the wire in order to calculate the second moment of area. They then used Euler bucking theory to calculate the theoretical deflection of the wire when various axial loads were applied. Once the students had used the theory to calculate the theoretical deflection they then tested the theory by applying various axial loads to the wire under different end support conditions (Figure 1f). The deflection readings were then compared to those obtained using the theory and the effects that the different end conditions have on column buckling deflection behaviour were discussed in their reports. Students were observed to enjoy undertaking the column buckling practical and it generated a high level of student engagement. 4

PROJECT EVALUATION AND DISCUSSION

A range of evaluation methods have been used to gauge the effectiveness of the new practicals in achieving increased student engagement, including classroom observation, standard course evaluation instruments, student surveys and analysis of assessment results. 4.1 Classroom observations Significant levels of student engagement were observed during the new practical classes (Figure 1). The small student groups appeared to work very well together with all group members taking responsibility for their roles in the practicals. There was much interaction and discussion among the group members and they all appeared to benefit from the experience.

4.2 Course evaluation instruments A standard course evaluation instrument called a student feedback on course (SFC) is used for all courses taught at the University of the Sunshine Coast every time they are delivered. The SFC results for Engineering Statics and Mechanics of Materials were analysed in 2011, which was the first year that the both new courses were run. The SFC has 16 questions in total with 10 core questions relating directly to the course being assessed. The most important of these questions is the last question: Q16: Overall, I was satisfied with the quality of this course. The average 2011 SFC evaluation results for Engineering Statics and Mechanics of materials were 4.2 and 4.8 respectively (on a 5 point scale with 5 = strongly agree with the statement and 1 = strongly disagree). The results for Q16 for both courses were 4.1 and 5.0 respectively. While these student evaluation results are extremely encouraging for courses run for the first time, other studies have pointed out that it is difficult to directly relate positive student feedback to measurable improvements in learning outcomes [9]. However, most of the student comments on the practicals shown in Section 4.3 clearly indicate that the students found the practicals using the new hands-on demonstration models interesting and enjoyable. Research [1] shows that knowledge acquisition and general cognitive development is much greater when students are engaged with their learning. When students are actively involved, they engage in higher-order thinking tasks such as analysis, synthesis, and evaluation [2]. The students' final grades for both courses reflected these higher order thinking skills. 4.3 Student Surveys In order to evaluate the effectiveness of using the new hands-on models in the practical classes, students were asked to comment on whether they thought that using the models had helped them understand the relevant theory. They were also asked for suggestions on how the practical classes might be improved. Some of the responses to these surveys are shown below. • • •

•

•

• •

• •

I think it was an interesting practical as it helped me to visualise and observe the reasons for a moment turning a certain direction around a particular point. I do feel as though this practical has helped me in understanding the applications and theory behind summing moments with the hands on experience that we have done. I believe that this practical has helped me grasp the concept of summing moments to find reactions. I feel that it has enhanced my learning experience and should continue to do so further into the semester. This practical helped me to better understand me topic. I liked the way the 10 cases were given to us, because I learn best by just repetition and practice as I believe a lot of other people do. Overall, I believe this was a good experiment showing the practical side of the method of sections. It definitely helped me improve my understanding of finding axial forces in trusses by cutting the truss and summing the moments around a point. This was a great way to learn what you really meant by the Method of Sections, I understand it a lot better now. I have found this practical has helped reinforce the concept of sections quite well, and I really enjoyed being able to make my own truss section to see how forces worked. This practical was a great challenge, lots of fun. More like this! Before the practical my understanding of Centroids was limited but as I worked through the steps it became clearer to the knowledge and understanding of the concept Overall, I believe this was a good experiment showing the practical side of finding the Centroid. It definitely helped me improve my understanding of Centroids and 1st Moment of Areas.

• • •

I think this was a good prac. Unfortunately my results were messed up however despite this I think it aided in my understanding on the concepts surrounding friction. The prac gave a good visualisation of the work covered in the lectures regarding friction. Perhaps a bit much crammed into one prac. The Practical help me to understand the concepts of dry friction and more specifically the coefficient of static friction, It allowed me to get some hands on experience and even though the results didn't match up in the end I know why they didn't.

4.4 Evaluation of Final Grades Although the new practicals were clearly successful in improving the level of student engagement, teamwork and understanding, it is difficult to make any substantial claims on the pedagogical benefits of using the hands-on, interactive models due to a lack of reliable evidence. However, the final grades for students in both Engineering Statics and Mechanics of Materials were substantially better than typical results presented in the literature for similar foundation mechanics courses [19; 20; 21]. Although there is very limited data available on engineering student pass rates, Table 1 shows pass rates for USC Engineering Statics and Mechanics students compared to similar international foundation mechanics course student pass rates. Table 1. Comparison of Overall Student Pass Rates Course Institution Engineering Statics University of the Sunshine Coast (Australia) Mechanics of Materials University of the Sunshine Coast (Australia)

Year 2011 2011 20042009

Pass Rate 78% 95%

Engineering Statics

The University of Texas at San Antonio [13]

62%

Engineering Statics

North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University, USA [14]

2004

57%

Vector Statics

California State Polytechnic University [12]

20012002

56%

The results in Table 1 clearly show that USC student pass rates were better overall than similar international results. This better than average could be attributed to the increased level of interest and student engagement that these hands-on practicals produced. However, there is not enough evidence available at this time to verify this claim. There are many variables that could influence the results from one student cohort to the next and these would have to be taken into account to enable a realistic comparison. Although, the results are definitely encouraging. 5

CONCLUSIONS

This paper reports on an initiative that was undertaken to promote student engagement in order to improve learning outcomes in two new core undergraduate engineering mechanics courses. A set of low cost, hands-on, interactive models were developed for students to use in small groups that demonstrated the underlying theory and helped them to better understand the basic engineering mechanics principles. A comparison of student pass rates for the two new USC courses demonstrated that the pass rates were higher than those achieved in similar international foundation engineering courses Although these results are very encouraging, there is as yet, still insufficient evidence available to make any substantial claims on the pedagogical benefits of using the hands-on, interactive models. However, the degree of student engagement and involvement while undertaking the practicals was clearly evident. This paper illustrates that with a few materials

and a little imagination, engineering practicals can be designed to promote more engaging and rewarding student learning experiences. REFERENCES [1]

[2] [3]

[4]

[5] [6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]

Smith KA, Johnson DW, Johnson RW and Sheppard SD (2005), Pedagogies of engagement: Classroom-Based Practices. Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 94, No. 1, pp. 1-15. Bonwell CC and Eison JA (1991), Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom, Washington DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education. Ditcher A (2001), Effective teaching and learning in higher education, with particular reference to the undergraduate education of professional engineers, International Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 24 - 29. Mills JE and Treagust DF (2003), Engineering education – is problem-based or projectbased learning the answer? [online], Australasian Journal of Engineering Education. Available from: http://www.aaee.com.au/journal/2003/mills_treagust03.pdf Feisel LD and Rosa AJ (2005), The role of the laboratory in undergraduate engineering education, Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 94, No. 1, pp. 121-130. Maiorana C, Sgarbossa L and Salomoni V (2008), New methodologies in teaching estructural mechanics using WWW, Computer Applications in Engineering Education, Vol. 16, pp. 189-210. Abdel-Salam T, Kauffman PJ and Crossman G (2006), Does the lack of hands-on experience in a remotely delivered laboratory course affect student learning? European Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 31, No. 6, pp. 747-756. Baldock TE and Chanson H (2006), Undergraduate teaching of ideal and real fluid flows: the value of real-world experimental projects, European Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 31, No. 6, pp. 729-739. Goldfinch T, Carew A and McCarthy T (2008), improving learning in engineering mechanics: The significance of understanding, Proc. of the 2008 AAEE Conference, Yeppoon, Australia, pp.1-6. Steif P (2004), An articulation of the concepts and skills which underlie engineering statics, Proc. of the 2004 ASEE Conference, Louisville, Kentucky, USA. Emerson T and Ward M (2005), Students are leaving engineering curriculums; Can our educational approach stop this? Proc. of the 2005 ASEE Conference, Portland, USA. Rezaei A, Jawaharlal M, Kim K and Shih A (2007), Development of a hybrid vector statics course to reduce failure rate, Proc. of the 2007 ASEE Conference, Honolulu, USA. Manteufel R and Karimi A (2010), Grade-based correlation metric to identify effective statics instructors, Proc. of the 2010 ASEE Conference, Louisville, Kentucky, USA Waters CK and Rojeski P (2005), Retention of information – improving the engineering outcomes, Proc. of the 2005 ASEE Conference, Portland, Oregon, USA. Lombardi MM (2007), Authentic Learning for the 21st Century: An Overview, Educause website: http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI3009.pdf Dong K (2006), Making statics a friend for life, Proc. of the 2006 ASEE Conference, Kansas City, USA. Lucke T (2009), Developing more engaging engineering practicals, Proc. of the 2009 AAEE Conference, Adelaide, Australia. Biggs J (1996), Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment, Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 347-364.