Teaching engineering dynamics by use of peer instruction supported by an audience response system

The use of electronic audience response systems in university teaching is currently increasing rapidly. This paper describes how a consistent use of peer instruction facilitated by an audience response system has been introduced in an introductory engineering dynamics course. Data are presented that reveal that this teaching style leads to an increased learning outcome, especially regarding the students’ conceptual understanding of the subject. Further results show that the students are very satisfied with the teaching style and they give high rankings on several parameters, which is important to the learning process. Finally, this study indicates that the use of clickers provides the students with a more critical and hence maybe a more realistic self-assessment of their academic outcome.

[1]  Aruna Shekar,et al.  Active learning and reflection in product development engineering education , 2007 .

[2]  Jesús Félez,et al.  Experiences in education innovation: developing tools in support of active learning , 2006 .

[3]  Michelle K. Smith,et al.  Why Peer Discussion Improves Student Performance on In-Class Concept Questions , 2009, Science.

[4]  Amelito G Enriquez,et al.  Enhancing Student Performance Using Tablet Computers , 2010 .

[5]  Carl Angell,et al.  The role of ‘talking physics’ in an undergraduate physics class using an electronic audience response system , 2010 .

[6]  E. Mazur,et al.  Peer Instruction: Ten years of experience and results , 2001 .

[7]  Lei Bao,et al.  Testing a new voting machine question methodology , 2008 .

[8]  Using Electronic Response Systems in Economics Classes , 2009 .

[9]  Derek O. Bruff,et al.  Teaching with Classroom Response Systems: Creating Active Learning Environments , 2009 .

[10]  L. Resnick,et al.  Knowing, Learning, and Instruction , 2018 .

[11]  Jacquelyn F. Sullivan,et al.  Hands-on Engineering: Learning by Doing in the Integrated Teaching and Learning Program* , 1999 .

[12]  Clare van den Blink.  2006-2551: A COMPARISON AND EVALUATION OF PERSONAL RESPONSE SYSTEMS IN INTRODUCTORY COMPUTER PROGRAMMING , 2006 .

[13]  D. Nicol,et al.  Peer Instruction versus Class-wide Discussion in Large Classes: A comparison of two interaction methods in the wired classroom , 2003 .

[14]  R. Hibbeler.  Engineering Mechanics: Dynamics , 1986 .

[15]  E. Mazur,et al.  Peer Instruction: Results from a Range of Classrooms , 2002 .

[16]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation , 1991 .

[17]  Cynthia Desrochers,et al.  Student Response Technology: Empirically grounded or just a gimmick? , 2008 .

[18]  R. Hake.  Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses , 1998 .

[19]  David A. Banks,et al.  Audience Response Systems in Higher Education: Applications and Cases. , 2006 .

[20]  Richard M. Felder,et al.  A Longitudinal Study of Engineering Student Performance and Retention. IV. Instructional Methods , 1995 .

[21]  Edward E. Prather,et al.  Clickers as Data Gathering Tools and Students' Attitudes, Motivations, and Beliefs on Their Use in This Application , 2009 .

[22]  Karl A. Smith,et al.  Strategies for energizing large classes : from small groups to learning communities , 2000 .

[23]  D'Arcy.  Effective Use of a Personal Response System in a General Education Plant Pathology Class , 2007 .

[24]  Ian D. Beatty,et al.  Designing effective questions for classroom response system teaching , 2005, physics/0508114.

[25]  Robert J. Dufresne,et al.  Classtalk: A classroom communication system for active learning , 1996, J. Comput. High. Educ..

[26]  Eric Mazur,et al.  Peer Instruction: A User's Manual , 1996 .

[27]  Jill A. Marshall,et al.  Classroom Response Systems: A Review of the Literature , 2006 .