Using Multimedia and Cooperative Learning In and Out of Class

Using Multimedia and Cooperative Learning In and Out of Class William M. Clark Chemical Engineering Department Worcester Polytechnic Institute Worcester, MA 01609 Abstract - A multimedia learning tool was combined with a cooperative group project to provide an alternative to the traditional lecture/homework format in a sophomore level chemical engineering thermodynamics course. The CDROM based learning tool included motivational video of real processes, theoretical development including text, audio, video, and animation files, a virtual laboratory experiment, applications with worked examples, and self tests for learners. Teams of four students were loaned two CDs and assigned the task of learning the material while simultaneously completing a project requiring understanding of the fundamentals presented on the CD. The multimedia/group project format was evaluated against the traditional lecture/homework format with regard to student satisfaction, student learning, and faculty and staff time. Student satisfaction increased while student learning remained constant or may have increased slightly. The multimedia/group project format requires substantially more initial development time but does provide some savings in delivery time once developed.

Introduction Extensive research has shown that active and cooperative learning has numerous advantages over the traditional lecture format [1,2]. This paper describes using interactive multimedia technology together with a cooperative group project to provide a more active, more efficient learning experience, both in and out of class. A multimedia learning tool provided fundamental information needed to complete a cooperative group project. At the same time, the project served as motivation for learning the fundamental material provided on the learning tool. The multimedia/group project format was evaluated as an alternative to the traditional lecture/homework format with regard to student satisfaction, student learning, and faculty and staff time. Student satisfaction was measured with standard WPI course evaluations and compared against those for the same course in previous years. Student satisfaction and attitudes were also gauged via pre- and post-course surveys covering attitudes about computers, cooperative learning, and chemical engineering. Student learning was evaluated by comparing scores on tests taken individually covering one topic presented by the lecture/homework format with those on tests covering

another topic presented by the multimedia/group project format. Test scores were also compared to those from previous course offerings where the lecture/homework format was used for all topics. The time required from faculty and teaching assistants to deliver the multimedia/group project format was compared to that required to deliver the lecture/homework format. The course studied was a sophomore level chemical engineering thermodynamics course. The main topics of the course were phase equilibria and chemical reaction equilibria. The class met every day for seven weeks (students at WPI take three courses in each of four sevenweek terms in an academic year). The first two weeks were taught with a traditional lecture/homework format and covered definitions and fundamentals underlying equilibrium calculations. The next three weeks covered phase equilibria and were also taught with the lecture/homework format. In the 96-97 course offering, the final two weeks of the course used a multimedia/group project format to teach reaction equilibria. The 96-97 offering was compared to the 94-95 and 95-96 offerings of the same course given by the same instructor. There were about seventy students in each offering.

Computer-aided Learning Tool An interactive multimedia learning environment that provides a thorough nonlinear treatment of chemical reaction equilibria was created using the instructional media developer’s software SIMPLE [3]. The main screen provided links to six sections, each leading to a series of interactive screens. Most screens provided text information and an opportunity for learners to input answers to questions or problems. Answers were checked and recorded in a log file and feedback was provided depending on the answer. Some screens also delivered audio, video, or animation files that reinforced the concept presented on the screen. Each screen provided convenience buttons to advance, back up, return to the beginning of a section, or return to the main screen. Buttons were also provided to call a calculator, notepad, and other tools or programs as needed. There was also a motivational film clip on the main screen that was a portion of a promotional video from

a major oil company explaining the importance of the catalytic cracking process for producing gasoline. Clicking “Introduction” initiated a series of screens that provided a historical example of the importance of reaction equilibria. The “Fundamentals” section provided interactive notes on the subject broken down into bite-sized subtopics. Most subtopics included worked examples as well as short problems for learners to try. The content of the “Fundamentals” section was intentionally similar to that of the required text [4]. In the “Illustrative Examples” section learners activated buttons that called Excel spreadsheets to solve complex reaction equilibria problems. They ran the Excel reactions at different conditions to see the effect of process variables such as temperature, pressure, and initial composition on the equilibrium product compositions that were displayed on a pie chart. They also investigated the effect of simplifying assumptions in the calculation procedure on the calculated equilibrium compositions. Upon closing the Excel files, learners were returned to the “Illustrative Examples” screens where they were prompted to answer questions about the effects of the various parameters on reactions. The “Laboratory Experiments” section contained a virtual titration reaction experiment including a video showing the color change as a function of pH, descriptions of spectrophotometric and pH measurements, calibration curves, and photographs of beakers at different stages of the titration. Clicking on the beakers produced measured pH and spectrophotometric values that allowed calculation of the equilibrium constant for the reaction. The “Example Problems” section contained typical homework problems. Learners were prompted to solve the problems and were aided by the use of a calculator, Excel, Mathcad, and data files containing required values of constants that are normally found in an appendix of a text. Efficient learners could copy the required data and paste it in their spreadsheets. Detailed solutions were provided for each of the example problems. The “Test Yourself” section provided example tests that were given to previous year’s classes. Learners provided answers and feedback indicated if they were correct, but detailed solutions were not provided for the sample tests. The multimedia learning tool was produced on CDROM. It called Excel and Mathcad from the WPI Novell Network. Each group of four students (described below) was loaned two CDs. Class was held in a computer equipped classroom during the two weeks devoted to reaction equilibria.

Cooperative Group Project Students were randomly assigned to four-member cooperative learning teams. The teams’ objectives were to

learn the material on the CD learning tool, to prepare for a one-hour exam on the subject to be taken individually, and to prepare an oral and a written report on an assigned project. No homework was assigned and no lectures were given. Students were free to investigate the CD learning tool or work on their projects during class time. The project placed the teams in the role of newly hired engineers asked to recommend an improvement to a chemical reaction process. Two proposed improvements were provided to be analyzed, but the final recommendation was open- ended. Analyzing the first proposed improvement was straightforward but analyzing the second was more challenging. The project was related to the introductory film clip on catalytic cracking on the CD-ROM. All the background information required to complete the project was provided on the CD. Each student was required to be prepared to give a five minute oral progress report to the class one week after the project was assigned. It was expected that analysis of the first proposed improvement would be complete at that time. One spokesperson from each group was selected at random and announced at the beginning of class on oral presentation day. Since all group members earned a grade based on what the spokesperson presented, groups worked together to ensure that each member was prepared to give a good report. Brief written, final reports were due two weeks after the project was assigned. Each group member was required to sign a report cover page certifying that he/she contributed to and understood the contents of the report. All group members received the same project grade unless a group self assessment instrument indicated that some members deserved a lower grade for failing to contribute their share. An individual exam, given the day after the final report was due, also included a group grade element. Groups in which all members earned passing grades (>70) received five bonus points as an incentive to work together and ensure the entire group learned the material. Peer learning assistants (upper-class undergraduate students) were employed to facilitate the group project work [5]. Each PLA was assigned three or four project groups to meet with in class and at least once a week outside of class. Their role was to help resolve group conflicts and keep the groups focused on studying the multimedia learning tool and completing the projects. They did not tutor, grade, nor contribute to their groups’ project solutions. PLAs were paid minimum wage for 10 hours per week. Five PLAs were used for a class of seventy students.

Student Satisfaction The cumulative results for student evaluation of the instructor for the past three years are shown in Table 1. Students chose either “strongly disagree”, “disagree”, “agree”, or “strongly agree” as responses to each of 14 statements concerning the instructor’s delivery of the course. These statements ranged from “established clear objectives for the course” to “assigned homework that aided my learning” to “was well above average” and all were phrased so that “agree” reflected satisfaction and “disagree” reflected dissatisfaction. Results for the 94-95 offering when a lecture/homework format was used were typical of the results obtained in the three preceding years with this course and that same format. The 95-96 offering was essentially a lecture/homework format but did include several longer homework problems that were done in cooperative groups. PLAs and multimedia tools were not used that year. The 96-97 offering was the one where phase equilibria was taught with the lecture/homework format and reaction equilibria was taught with the multimedia/group project format. These results indicate that the students were satisfied with the multimedia/group project format. The post-course surveys also indicated a high degree of student satisfaction with the multimedia/group project format. In both the pre- and post-course surveys (done only for the 96-97 course offering) a five-level response option was given on most questions; i.e. strongly dislike (disagree), dislike (disagree), neutral, like (agree), and really like (strongly agree). Table 2 shows the percentage of students responding at each level to several statements regarding learning formats. Clearly most students were pleased with the multimedia/group project format and only a few disliked it. In keeping with these results, 75% of the students chose the multimedia/group project format when asked directly which format they liked better. 71% also felt that the multimedia/group project format helped them learn better than the lecture/homework format. These results indicate that neutral responders sided with the dislikes (and some of the likes) when forced to choose between the two formats. Thus, while few students disliked the new format, 25 to 30 % still preferred the traditional lecture/homework format. A mixture of formats is probably the best approach for reaching all of the students.

Comparison between the pre- and post-course surveys revealed some attitude changes consistent with the finding that most students enjoyed the multimedia/group project format. There were significant increases in positive responses to the following statements: “I learn better by doing than listening”, “Sometimes in class I wish I could work on problems rather than listen to lecture”, ”I find thermodynamics an exciting subject to study”, “I expect to enjoy (enjoyed) this class”, “I like the idea of working on projects with other students”, “I like the idea of using computers as an aid to learning”, “Graphs or visual aids help me learn new concepts”, “I expect (found) that the use of computers in class will enrich (enriched) my learning experience”, and “I like the idea of hands-on use of computers during class time”. Similarly, there was an increase in negative responses to the statements: “In my opinion, the best engineers work on problems by themselves” and “I think computers are overused in teaching at WPI”. Interestingly, there was an increase in positive responses to the statement: “The use of computers in teaching makes the learning process too impersonal”. Student attitudes about their own abilities also improved as significant increases in positive responses were obtained for the statements: “I am a good student”, “I am good with computers”, “I think I know what professionals in my major actually do”, “I think computer use is important for chemical engineering professionals”, “I am comfortable using computers”, and “I know how to use spreadsheets like Excel and Lotus 123”. Other indications that the multimedia/group project format was well received included numerous favorable verbal comments from the students and my own impression that students were livelier and more engaged during computer/project classes than during lecture classes. Attendance was not recorded, but appeared to be between 90 and 100 % with most students immediately going to work in their groups upon arrival, before the beginning of formal class time, and many students continuing to work after class time was over.

Student Learning Test scores for three course offerings are shown in Table 3. In each offering there were three tests; one on definitions and fundamentals underlying equilibria, a second on phase

Table 1. Cumulative Student Evaluations of Instructor for Three Course Offerings Year 94-95 95-96 96-97

Strongly disagree 3% 2% 0%

Disagree 17% 8% 5%

Agree

Strongly Agree

57% 60% 67%

23% 30% 28%

Table 2. Responses to Selected Post-Course Survey Statements Strongly Dislike

Dislike

Neutral

Like

Really Like

Use of computer-aided learning tool in class as an alternative to lecture. 1% 10% 13% 60% 15% Use of computer-aided learning tool outside of class as an alternative to homework. 0% 9% 10% 53% 28% Use of cooperative group project in class as an alternative to lecture. 0% 13% 16% 50%

21%

Use of cooperative group project outside of class as an alternative to homework. 0% 6% 21% 46% 28% Working in groups rather than alone. 1% 3%

16%

equilibria, and a third on reaction equilibria. Since the tests and students were different each year, no firm conclusions can be drawn from these data. However, since the 96-97 offering yielded an increase in test average for the third test compared to the first and second test, it does appear that the multimedia/group project format did not hinder student learning and may have improved it. It should be noted that that while the technical content and material coverage remained the same, the 96-97 offering also included the important experiences of presenting an oral and a written report. The 96-97 students also expressed the perception that they learned as well or better than in previous offerings. The percentage of students answering agree or strongly agree with the statement “I learned a lot in this course” on the standard WPI course evaluations was 77 % in 94-95, 97 % in 95-96, and 97 % in 96-97. Table 3. Test Averages for Three Course Offerings Year 94-95 95-96 96-97

Test 1

Test 2

Test 3

69.9 70.1 60.8

69.4 80.4 58.2

79.5 75.5 72.7

50%

29%

to use, it takes time to type and format the screen information, especially when chemical and mathematical formulas are required. The fact that a learning tool for thermodynamics can be reused for several years helps justify the large initial time investment. Developing a group project that has both definite expected results and open-ended components and that requires application of fundamental principles also requires more time than selecting common homework problems. There were some time savings that helped offset the large initial time investment. There was no need to prepare for and deliver lectures. Although I attended class, I did other work there unless questions arose. When questions did arise, I felt like students were actually learning from my responses as opposed to merely listening to me lecture. Although teaching assistants were employed to grade homework and tests for the class, their time was not required during the two weeks with the multimedia/group project format. The use of PLAs appears to be cost effective, particularly if work/study financial aid students are used. They assisted with group processing, promoted group efficiency, helped monitor group progress, and mediated conflict resolution. Without PLAs, these tasks would require faculty or teaching assistant time.

Conclusions Faculty and Staff Time The time required to prepare the multimedia learning tool and group project was much greater than that required to prepare lectures and homework. Much of the increased time can be attributed to the desire to give the multimedia presentation a more professional look than most overhead and blackboard notes. Even though SIMPLE is very easy

The multimedia/group project format was well received by students. Their satisfaction and attitudes improved and learning did not suffer (and may have increased). Although the multimedia learning tool was costly in preparation time there are some offsetting benefits, particularly if the learning tool is for a subject that does not change much from year to year and can be reused. The

multimedia/group project format is worth considering as an alternative to the lecture/homework format, at least for portions of a course.

Acknowledgments Financial support for this project from the Davis Educational Foundation is gratefully acknowledged.

References 1.

Felder, R. M. and Silverman, L. K., “Learning and Teaching Styles in Engineering Education”, Eng. Ed. 78, 674 (1988). 2. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., and Smith K. A., Active Learning: Cooperation in the College

Classroom, Interaction Book Company, Edina, MN (1991). 3. Hagler, M., Marcy, W. H., and Wetzel, K. C., “SIMPLE in Practice”, paper 3b31, Proceedings of the 25th Frontiers in Education Conference, Atlanta, November (1995). 4. Smith, J. M., Van Ness, H. C., and Abbott, M. M., Introduction to Chemical Engineering th Thermodynamics, 5 Ed., McGraw-Hill, New York (1996). 5. Groccia, J. E., “Increasing Educational Quality and Faculty Productivity Through Cooperative and Peer Assisted Learning”, ASEE Conference Proc., Anaheim, CA, 1520-1524, 1995.